In Anton Chekhov’s “Cherry Orchard”, social, economic, and environmental themes of sustainability are brought up throughout the plot-line. These themes mainly revolve around the character of Madame Ranevsky, the owner of an estate with a cherry orchard. This gigantic orchard once had a fruitful history but has now become more of a burden for Ranevsky. Ranevsky has a history of running away from situations in her life. For example, after her husband and child die within a month of one another, Ranevsky runs away to Paris. While in Paris, she becomes romantically involved with a man, but is unable to sustain this relationship. She ignored the dysfunction, trying to escape by drinking poison. Another aspect of her life Ranevsky could not sustain was her estate. She was in debt but tried escaping this financial encumbrance by simply acting as though the problem did not exist. By fleeing from the emotional chaos in her relationships and family losses and not facing her debts, Ranevsky’s life was not sustainable. These aspects tore her life apart and left her with no choice but to sell the estate. When Lopakhin bought the estate, he carried out his plan of cutting down the orchard and building cottages for profit. His construction plan, the opposite of environmental sustainability, was the result of Ranevsky’s lack of social and monetary sustainability.
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Battleship Potemkin and the Russian Revolution
The film, Battleship Potemkin is a very accurate depiction of Russian life in the early 1900’s. From the image of officers physically abusing the men on the ship to the massacre at the Odessa staircase, Eisenstein certainly brought the image of revolution to life in a shocking and thought-provoking way.
In the film, after Vakulinchuk was murdered, his body was placed by the harbor with a candle and a paper that read, “Killed for a plate of soup.” This notion resonates with the Russian people, and they unite on behalf of the common goal of holding the oppressor—in this case, the Tsar—responsible for their injustice. The scene that depicted Vakulinchuk’s body in the tent, and the response of the Russian people, seemed to parallel Mazower’s depictions of liberal uprisings. The violent response that Tsars utilized to quell the people was common not only in Russia, but among several European cities during the rise and fall of democracy. I also found it intriguing how immediate the response of the Russian people was upon viewing Vakulinchuk’s body. It was as if a spark ignited and rapidly spread across the city.
The massacre itself on the Odessa staircase is a painfully accurate visualization of Mazower’s descriptions. He states, “… the congress sought the creation of socialism by ending exploitation, ‘crushing completely’ the bourgeoisie and vesting power in the working population as expressed by the Soviets” (12). Eisenstein’s scene on the Odessa staircase is a literal representation of the Russian powers silencing those in favor of liberalism.
It is clear by the end of this film that democracy in Russia will be suppressed. The Russian people have two clear options: respect authority and stay alive, or rebel and be killed. The film ends with a bleak view of what the future will hold for Russia in terms of authoritarian leadership.
Two Portraits of Revolution
Revolution has proven to be an incendiary topic throughout history, thus becoming the subject of countless different interpretations across various mediums. Mark Mazower’s Dark Continent, a rigorous portrait of early twentieth-century European governments, and Battleship Potemkin, a Russian propaganda film relating the story of a Russian sailing crew’s mutiny against the ship’s oppressive officers, present two equally informative images of the Russian revolution that vary drastically in perspective.
Mazower’s text revisits the topic of interwar European government from a perspective that does not presuppose the primacy of democracy. Consequently, he presents the Russian revolution as a quasi re-imagination of liberal democracy. The author recounts the revolution’s optimistic origins as a move toward the unification of Russia behind the “‘universal democratic soul'” described by Prince Lvov (Mazower, 10). However, Mazower acknowledges the divisions that arose due to the ambiguity of the revolution’s goal (i.e. “‘bourgeois democratic'” vs. “‘proletarian socialist'”) and how this ultimately led Russia to be “squeezed increasingly tightly between the twin extremes of communism and fascism” (Mazower, 10 & 13).
Conversely, in Battleship Potemkin, the sobering relative objectivity that pervades Mazower’s work vanishes into overt propaganda. The plot is simple and quickly established by the on-screen dialogue, which is dominated by rallying cries for revolution such as “All for one and one for all!” and “Let nothing divide us!” These lines originate in the mouths of the mutinous sailors and eventually find their way to the people of Odessa, who rally against the Tsarist regime upon hearing the story of the death of sailor Vakulinchuk (“Killed for a plate of soup”). This text in conjunction with the insistently dramatic bombast of the score and several poignant images (the destruction of the Odessa Opera House, a baby carriage careening down a flight of steps in the midst of a riot) creates a poignant albeit transparent appeal to the pathos of the viewing audience in an attempt to glorify the concept of a Russian revolution.
Ultimately, Mazower’s view of the Russian revolution is one of factual pragmatism that benefits from several decades of hindsight and research, while Battleship Potemkin (much like Triumph of the Will) is equally useful as an image of one faction’s ambitions created in the climate of the revolution it advocated.
Battleship Potemkin and The Dark Continent
Both the book Dark Continent and the film Battleship Potemkin offer unique interpretations of the causes and results of the Russian Revolution. Battleship Potemkin depicts the Russian Revolution on a smaller scale, as the sailors on the battleship Potemkin mutiny against their Tsarist officers. In Dark Continent, Mazower describes the Russian Revolution as “all the parties involved in the overthrow of the old autocracy…committed to preserving their gains from the monarchy’s return” (Mazower 10). The film depicts this mentality very well, as the lower classes come together to defeat the Tsarists after Valkulinchuk, the soldier who instigated the rebellion on the Potemkin is killed.
Similarly to Skylar, the role of religion in relation of the communist ideals of the film intrigued me. Just about all depictions of religion in the film are negative. In an early scene, a sailor is shown smashing a plate with the Christian mantra “give us this day our daily bread” inscribed on it. A God-like figure is also shown during some of the mutiny scenes, telling the rebelling sailors to remember him. The sailors however, ignore him for the sake of continuing the mutiny, at one point even pushing him out of the way. I saw this scene as symbolic of the rejection of religion in the communist USSR. In both of these scenes, Christianity is portrayed as being closely connected to the Tsarist regime with which the sailors are trying to do away through their mutiny.
Another scene that shows the relationship between religion and communism is one in which a man in the crowd states “Kill the Jews.” For this comment, he is attacked by the mob. Mazower describes in Dark Continent how the new communist state had unrestricted citizenship in theory, even enfranchising women and some foreigners. This creates an image of a far more tolerant society than that of others of the time, such as Nazi Germany. Religious intolerance would create a disruption to this ideal communist society, resulting in the rejection of religion as a whole.
This film does an excellent job portraying the positives of a communist society.
Comparison of Chapter One from “Dark Continent” and the Film “October” [Revised]
‘Dark Continent” was written by Mark Mazower in 1998, about interwar Europe. “October: 10 Days that Shook the World” is a 1928 Russian movie commemorating the October 1917 Revolution in Russia. After giving a brief introduction about Russia in World War One, the February Revolution, and the provisional government that ensued, it goes on to show the conditions under the new government, the heroism of the Bolsheviks and finally the popular victory of Lenin, communism and the proletariat. However, while watching the movie, one must remember that it was a piece of propaganda designed to promote the communist government, and hence is biased towards the communist ‘victors’.
In an initial scene, the movie depicts the early enthusiasm that greeted the fall of the monarchy and the rise of the provisional government, which promised the people a greater say in the political running of the country. However, this enthusiasm soon fades as the War continues and people are seen to be starving as the rationing of bread drops from a pound a person to a quarter pound in a matter of seconds on-screen. This disillusionment with forms of post-war democracy is reflected in the writings of Mazower, who says that early liberal [i.e. pro-democracy] policy makers in Europe did not seem to realize that the people primarily needed security of life and land, rather than the immediate ability to determine their long-term political fate (p.11). In comparison, the right and left wing politicians promoted the idea of ‘bread, land and peace’, which can clearly be seen in several scenes in the movie, notably when Lenin returns to Russia.
However, the scene when the peaceful proletarian rioters are attacked by the upper class aristocrats, who were enjoying ‘leisurely’ activities at the time, stinks of propaganda and the advocacy of the working-class communist government, who are coincidently in power in 1928. Mazower confirms that this attack by democrats on the normal people is absurd when he says that they mostly lost power because they lost touch with the people (p.27), not because they attacked them in the street.
Another, slightly subtler, form of propaganda arrives in the scene when the Bolsheviks are deciding whether to stage a revolution or not. Trotsky initially states they should wait, which is followed by an impassioned speech by Lenin stating that to wait is tantamount to giving up any chance at a revolution. At the end of the scene the Bolsheviks take a vote (subtly hinting again that everything in the state is done to the peoples’ wishes) and completely decide on supporting Lenin. This scene was most probably worked in to gain support for Stalin’s eventual decision to exile Trotsky, and to confirm his rightful position of head of the Soviet Union. Another subtle put down is when the movie refuses to acknowledge that Trotsky was in charge of the Red Guard and was largely responsible for the successful capture of Petrograd (p.11).
While “October” may have certain historical discrepancies, it is a useful movie to understand both the timeline of 1917 Russia and the evolution of mass propaganda in an interwar European dictatorship during the early age of film.
The Cherry Orchard: Foreshadow of the Russia to Come?
While reading Anton Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard I found examples of the many types of struggles Russia would face in the 20th Century. There were so many seemingly direct allusions to these struggles that when I remembered the play was written in 1904, I was shocked. Many of these foreshadows are related to sustainability, and The Cherry Orchard touches on sustainability in multiple ways: preserving the environment, maintaining economic prosperity and keeping old traditions and ways of life alive.
Right away the family is facing the critical choice of whether to auction off their family cherry orchard and leave their home or create a development of summer villas to rent out to vacationers. The first option would leave them debt-free but homeless; the second would essentially keep them in their home, but the beloved cherry orchard would be destroyed. The essence of the problem is one that the future Soviet Union would know well: sacrificing the environment to continue gaining economically. Madame Ranevsky resisted this idea of land parcels and cottages through the entire play, however in the end the wealthy neighbor Lopakhin bought the property with the intention of cutting down the orchard and building villas. This symbolized the transition from focusing on the past to looking towards the future, but also underscored the class tensions present in the story.
The undercurrents of animosity between the wealthy and the lower class characters were evident in the relationship between Madame Ranevsky and Lopakhin, son of a serf. Her relationship with Trophimof was also fluctuating, particularly in Act 3 when she gives him a hard time for his idealized thinking yet limited accomplishments. 20th Century Russia will be characterized by Marxism and the idea of class struggles. Chekhov gives glimpses of how the current system will prove to be unsustainable for the future, evolving Russia.
Trophimof is the true voice of the future Russia in the play, making grand speeches on the laziness of the educated and how they must work harder if Russia is to grow stronger and attain all that it wants. He predicts the future of mankind as a march towards truth and happiness, free from the restrictions of property and money. The overall theme of the play could be consolidated into the theme of past versus future. Different characters represent different times, and through the dialogue the reader can ascertain characters’ opinions on matters such as the changing importance of property, the emerging middle class, the industrialization and evolution of Russia’s economy and the future of the class system.
Sustainability in The Cherry Orchard
The theme of sustainability in The Cherry Orchard is that of being economically equitable and viable. The inhabitants of the estate are neither of these things and therefore are not living a sustainable life. The Ranevsky family is bankrupt, struggling to pay their mortgage, and yet they spend money on items they do not need. The cherry orchard has been part of the Ranevsky estate for over a century, so the family does not wish to sell it, but they have few other options. One option is to cut down the orchard and sell the land to make villas, but Madame Ranevsky won’t allow such a thing to happen to the orchard.
However, Madame Ranevsky shouldn’t have such sway over the future of the estate, because she hasn’t lived there in 6 years. After her husband passed away and her son died in an accident within the same month, she fled the estate in grief, ending up in Paris with a new lover. Her younger daughter Anya is returning with her from Paris at the start of the play, making sure her mother has some part in the future of the orchard as it is about to be sold to pay off their debts. Madame Ranevsky continues to spend money carelessly and refuses to make a plan for the orchard. She throws parties and gives alms to beggars while her own servants have only nuts to eat. Her lack of economic viability is a key factor in the downfall of the estate and its lack of sustainability. Had she focussed on the future, instead of fearing change, she could have married her daughters to rich noblemen or sold the land to make villas. Instead of dealing with her debts, she lets her brother auction for the orchard, and he loses due to lack of funds. A neighbor buys the land to make into villas, and the last scene is of the trees being cut down because the Ranevsky family wasn’t economically viable.
Socialism and Battleship Potemkin
While watching the film, Battleship Potemkin (1925), directed by Sergei Eisenstein, I found it so interesting how it mimicked the Russian Revolution on a small scale. One of the first lines of dialogue was “We must stand in front of revolution”. This line came from one of the sailors and, in my opinion, was the most defining line in the movie. It represents the crucial role the working class played in not only this movie, or even in the revolution itself, but in socialism as a whole. With this, I can completely understand why this movie goes down in history as one of the best propaganda films of all time.
The movie centered around sailors uprising against the unfair treatment by the captain and his men and the disastrous aftermath in the town of Odessa. There we see the Tsarist regime massacring the city after coming together to pay their dues to the dead soldier. It is also really interesting to me how the film represented the Tsar relinquishing power. At the end, when the enemy could’ve fired at the sailors, they did not. It’s almost as if they knew there was nothing more they could do to suppress the inevitable. Similarly, in “Abdication”, the Tsar is relinquishing his power because the people are revolting due to concerns for their own welfare and disdain for the regime. With the way the Tsar was portrayed in the film, it seems absolutely reasonable that the people are calling for a revolution and moving towards communism. Grand Duke Mikhail, who accepts power from the Tsar, explains how he will rule based on “desire of the people”. It’s intriguing to see the progression of not only the people’s want for socialism, but the leader’s eventual move towards it as the revolution grows.
The entire film is about the revolution coming from the working class. Lenin’s “What Have I Done?”, is also entirely about how the revolution will come from the working class. Several times in the film we hear things like “All for one, one for all!”, and even more appropriate, “All against one, one against all”. The movie so cleverly encompassed very important aspects of socialism.
In Dark Continent, Mazower speaks about an end to “lawlessness and social anarchy through decisive state action” (p.11) , as seen in the film. The people do not want to be prisoners of their own government. I thought the main theme was portrayed perfectly of how the bourgeoisie would be no more, and that the working population will be invested in in order to unify the nation. Mazower agrees on page 12, where he talks about how priority was now given to the masses. Socialism seemed to work in Russia, as portrayed by both Mazower and the Battleship Potemkin, because the Tsarist regime (and liberal regime) failed to work.
An aspect of the film I found really very compelling were the subtle religious references. The first being the biblical inscription on the plate a sailor smashed, which I think may have represented socialism’s disdain for religious because it divides a nation. Perhaps it could’ve also represented the class division, since they were not fed off of those plates. The second was a anti-semmetic comment which fits the time period. However, the crowd was outraged at the comment further insuring that there is no room for inequality.
The Cherry Orchard: A Modern Take
Anton Chekhov’s drama The Cherry Orchard focuses on a common motif that is often seen today: the idea of someone “selling out” their land and the environmental vs economic question it presents. Recently, I watched the movie The Descendants and it’s amusing to see how much the movie, or the author of the book the movie was based on (Kaui Hart Hemmings) consciously or subconsciously borrowed from Chekhov. Yes, the movie took place in Hawaii and not Russia, and no, there were no fatal boating accidents in The Cherry Orchard. But the theme of a family facing the dilemma of selling land that has been in the family for centuries is exactly the same.
The theme centers around this: a family possesses a large amount of valuable land that has belonged to their family for centuries. The land is untouched and home to plants and wildlife. The family comes across some kind of financial difficulty. A rich person (in modern times, usually some sort of real estate developer or a CEO) offers to buy the land, promising a huge sum of money. The family then faces the dilemma of whether or not to sell the land.
In The Cherry Orchard, Madame Ranevsky, who is deeply in debt, ultimately decides to sell the land to the wealthy Lopakhin. She, her daughters, and her servants, leave the land and begin their lives anew. The exception is the old manservant, Firs, who symbolically dies just as the ax begins to chop down the first trees.
In The Descendants, the proprietor of the land, Matt King, ultimately decides not to sell, much to the anger of his cousins. This change could be due to the fact that Hemmings, as a modern day author, was more aware of environmental responsibilities than Chekhov was.
The thing that struck me the most about The Cherry Orchard was how universal and relevant is still is to modern life. It can be compared to a George Clooney movie, as well as events that are happening in many of our own communities. In my opinion, that is why Chekhov is considered one of western literature’s finest: his ideas are still relatable to modern audiences.
The Cherry Orchard
On reading this piece I was immediately struck by how apparently the characters portray the social and political groups present in the transitional Soviet state. Most noticeable were the roles of Madame Ranevsky and Lopakin. Reading the interactions between the ex-bourgeoisie and the ex-serf related to the Communist conflict in Russia where those that felt oppressed, that felt like they had to take retribution, did so by assuming the property of the bourgeoisie and their status. These characters’ interests (Ranevsky’s in the orchard and Lopakin’s in the tenement buildings) also reflect the interests of the combating classes of the time (Soviet Utilitarianism and Bourgeois Aestheticism).
In the context of the Russian country, this social mobility is in conflict with the legal stratified order, the soslovie. To maintain the established legal order would conflict with the reality of changing social norms. The classes that held social responsibilities, such as the clergy and the nobility, have been upturned by the social revolutions underway in Russia and this instability is eventually through the Soviet revolution.
The overwhelming turn towards utilitarianism and rationalism also contradict the nobility’s fascination with aesthetic and cultural value. As many of those born from the peasantry have come into economic power, they take their workers’ mentality and apply it to their surroundings. The desire to make work and life easier on their neighbors is taken from the era of serfdom. At this time a great majority of citizens were born of the working class, with very few from the nobility, contributing to a loss of respect toward “noble” ideas and practices. This is most apparently expressed through Ranevsky’s desire to hold the land for aesthetic value instead of utilizing it as property for the wealthy peasantry. As the wealthy peasantry grows, so will the demand on her land. Follwing this pattern, she will eventually be forced off the land or, as the play concludes, it is bought, reluctantly, from her.