Cherry Orchard

The Cherry Orchard is different from most of the other plays that I have seen. The true conflict that I saw was within the characters themselves and not in the plot. I honestly had no problems with the production, but I definitely didn't think it was the best play I've ever seen. I really just liked the different characters and their development through the play. I noticed how each of the main characters struggled with their past.

I'll start with Yermolay. He was the only person that I saw provided more conflict to the play. He always had an action or plan to take. When the orchard was up to sell he offered many options to Ranevskaya, such as offering a loan or telling her to parcel the land and build summer cottages. Ultimately, he ended up purchasing the orchard. The reason was clear in his speech saying that if his father can see the same Yermolay that was a peasant has bought “the most beautiful estate in the world.” I feel like he felt as if he was changing the roles around of his past. He, the peasant, now owns the orchard; and the “wealthy” family losing their fortune, letting him break free from his rough past.

Next, Ranevskaya, had very evident conflicts with her past. The death of her husband and son. Apparently, she fled to Paris to forget painful memories. Returning to the orchard seemed to make her regress to a child-like state, ignorant to how severe the situation was. The orchard, is a symbol of her past and keeps her from moving forward. But what she doesn't notice is that once the orchard is sold (or destroyed) maybe she can move past all the bad memories she relates to the it. But she is tied to the orchard so much that you can see her mood deteriorate as the play moves on. Although the family has little money, you still see her giving gold to a drunkard when “the servants don't have anything to eat”, then asking “how are we