Abby Ringiewicz, Spring 2010
Peter P. Remaley’s article, “Chekov’s ‘The Cherry Orchard,’” illustrates both the complexity and the vagueness of Chekov’s play. The common debate among critics, Remaley points out, is whether The Cherry Orchard was written as an intended tragedy or a comedy. The article demonstrates that many critiques have argued both; and truly both elements are evident in the play. Remaley continues with examples of tragedy and comedy in the play. Instances of great tragedy, followed by unnecessary comic relief are very common. Also, the characters in the play show hints of both comedy and tragedy. The two situations complement each other, creating an honest and intricate play. With various examples of both of these genres, Remaley comes to his conclusion that the play certainly contains both: tragedy and comedy combined and adding to the complexity of The Cherry Orchard. Remaley ends his article pointing out that the mix of these two genres is “..a rather faithful description of life.” The article shows that both elements are expressed in the story and that without one another the play would not be what it is (Remaley, 16-20).
Remaley begins with the underlying question of his article: Is Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard a comedy or a tragedy? He asks, “Is it indeed a comedy as Chekhov claimed, or a tragedy as so many producers and critics have chosen to interpret it?” (16) In an effort to decipher the intentions of Chekhov’s play, Remaley focuses on the characters and the plot, rather than those who are criticizing the play. The dialogue, actions, and overall tone of the play can easily be viewed differently depending on the form in which it is viewed: written text or a live production. Remaley gives examples of the feeble doings of some of Chekhov’s characters. Gayev, Mrs. Ranevsky’s brother, makes an attempt to save the orchard by proposing foolish solutions: inheriting a fortune or being leant the money by an imagined general. Reading Gayev’s preposterous ideas, which are genuinely formed by the character, might give the reader the sense that Gayev’s endeavors are for humorous purposes. With little stage direction and hint of the characters’ mannerisms, the text is all that the reader has to follow. However, watching a production of the play brings a greater feel to the audience. Characters have facial expressions, tones to their voices, and live movements. To watch Gayev as he proposes these solutions brings to the audience the travesty that is Gayev’s sense of reason. The tragedy in Gayev’s efforts is in his belief in the proposed solutions, which is apparent when watching a live illustration of the play. Another example of misreading the tone within the characters is with Peter Trofimov, a university student. Peter Trofimov is an example of humorous disaster. After a somewhat heated discussion with Mrs. Ranevsky, Peter exits both the quarrel and the scene by clumsily falling down the stairs. Upon reading this unfortunate act, the reader might find comedy in the character’s fall; however a live audience sees also the effects of the fall. An audience easily overlooks his triumph in the quarrel and once again focuses on his weak character, due to the reaction that his fall receives from Mrs. Ranevsky and onlookers. The use of uneventful anticlimax within the play reinforces the catastrophic and tragic tone of the play and is perhaps more evident upon watching the incidents: once characters or events develop, demise soon follows. The tone is ultimately recognized by the audience, which in the case of the play, can come in different forms. When Remaley questions whether the tone is comedic or tragic, he must take this into account, rather than compare the views of producers and audience members to those of the readers.
Looking to others for some clarity, Remaley becomes slightly inconsistent with his own ideas. Opening the article, Remaley mentions that Chekhov’s opinion of his play should not be viewed as the “definitive assessment” of the play and poses a position of W. K. Wimsatt: “..These critics submit that an author’s intention and the completed work may be quite different things” (16). Remaley urges the reader to disregard Chekhov’s opinion of comedy and instead focus on other sources of reason. However, later in the article Remaley bases his resolution on Chekhov himself: “I am describing life, ordinary life, and not bleak despondency” (19). Although it was previously mentioned that Chekhov’s interpretation of his own play cannot justify the overall nature of the play, Remaley considers it to be great insight into the dually focused play. Contradictive, Remaley conveys a mixed message to his readers; take into account Chekhov’s intentions, and at the same time; don’t. While the intentions of Remaley are merely to offer a solution to the readers, he essentially causes further confusion.
Although Remaley’s article is generally contradictive, I find myself agreeing with his ideas. Having both read and watched the play, the notion that tragedy and comedy come together through Chekhov’s characters is evident, and became even more visible to me after reading Remaley’s article. Like all natural persons, all of the characters in The Cherry Orchard are flawed in some sense, and some more than others. The exaggeration of these flaws is clear, however only to stress to the audience the sincerity of their unconventional ways. These exaggerations clearly showed tragedy, and each humorous instance was a result of a sad imperfection of character.
Somewhat counteracting his argument, Remaley finds tragedy and comedy to be interchangeable in the play: “..Encompassing both the tragic and comic dimensions which exist simultaneously in life” (20). Chekhov’s play merely looks into both sides of every situation; the good and the bad. Working side by side, comedy and tragedy shaped The Cherry Orchard into a fairly honest play about life. This is another point that I find myself agreeing with. Much like real life, there are hints of tragedy and humor in every situation. The synchronization of the two throughout the play brings a sense of authenticity to the play, which I liked very much. Having read critiques of The Cherry Orchard being categorized as both tragic and as comedic, I still find myself settling on an in-between conclusion. There is humor and there is tragedy, just like in real life; a fairly accurate embellishment of our everyday lives.
Works Cited
Remaley, Peter P. “Chekov’s ‘The Cherry Orchard'” South Atlantic Bulletin No.4. 38 (1973): 16-20. Jstor. Web. 31 Mar. 2010. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/3197077>