Approaching Chekov's The Cherry Orchard

The Cherry Orchard might actually catch some of you off guard. It’s not as existential on its surface as The Skin of Our Teeth and it’s nowhere near as absurd as Happy Days; however, I would argue there are moments in The Cherry Orchard which are more absurd and unconventional than either of the aforementioned plays.

But as you read the first act, your concerns should rest otherwise. First, get familiar with the characters and know their relationships with each other. Especially important is Lyuba, Anya, Varya, and Gayev, but do not under estimate the importance of characters such as Firs or Dunyasha. They are as important – if not more important – than the protagonists of our play. It is in characters like Firs and Dunyasha where the audience can see the absurd and the peculiar (and maybe even the truth of the play).

Once you get over the names, what you will find is an incredibly layered and complex play. The more familiar you get with this family, the more the individual choices of the characters seem insane. Where you will see the existential and absurd come into play is in communication. Take notice of which characters are paying attention to which characters, and look at how well they are communicating with each other. Unlike The Skin of Our Teeth where everyone is affected by everyone else, the people in The Cherry Orchard often times do not answer the question they were asked or randomly say something bizarre - “pickles” or even “moo!” come to mind.

The story also deals heavily with symbolism – primo numero uno is The Cherry Orchard, but there are many more. Think about how this story is both similar to The Skin of Our Teeth and Happy Days, and also think how different The Cherry Orchard is in comparison to those. Good luck in your reading – any questions or comments on this play feel free to post here.

Is The Skin of Our Teeth a Serious Play?

I wonder if I can take Thorton Wilder’s play, The Skin of Our Teeth, seriously. The tone of the play is unsophisticated and sarcastic. Events that occur are unrealistic. The question I ask myself is, “Can I take this play seriously, if the main characters cannot”. The play begins with the characters not coming on stage on cue. When Mrs. Antrobus does not appear on stage, Sabina becomes upset. She begins to improvise in order to stall the audience. When she gets frustrated, Sabina bashes the play. She says, “I can’t invent words for this play, and I’m glad I can’t. I hate this play and every word in it”. In other words, Sabina tells the audience the play is stupid and irrelevant.

Another reason I cannot take The Skin of Our Teeth seriously, is because of the talking animals. Animals cannot talk, and dinosaurs became extinct before humans appeared on Earth. There is no common sense in the play. When Mrs. Antrobus asks Sabina if the mammoth was milked, Sabina responds, “I don’t understand a word of this play.-Yes I’ve milked the mammoth”. Mammoth’s cannot be milked and were also extinct before human existence. If Sabina, an actress of the play, cannot understand the script, how is the audience supposed to understand the play?

Before the play begins, the announcer tells the audience the end of the world is postponed for twenty four hours. The end of the world would occur because of mother nature, not because a human said it would. It is not humanly possible to prevent the end of the world. If a block of ice was moving South, as described in the play, it would not stop moving because a person told it to.

The final reason I cannot take this play seriously, is because of the amount of time discussed. The reader finds out Henry is four thousand years old. We also find out Mr. and Mrs. Antrobus have been married for five thousand years. This statement in the play is more ridiculous than the talking dinosaur and mammoth. It is not humanly possible to live that amount of time.

Wilder's view on Existentialism

After reading Act I of The Skin of My Teeth by Thornton Wilder, I found myself questioning the intended message to the audience. In the play, Sabina reminds the audience that the play is idiotic and should not be taken seriously (Wilder 51). What I am getting out of the constant reminders is that the theme of the play, Existentialism, is a controversial topic and I feel that the author is mocking this study. In the play, there is a coexistence of dinosaurs, humans and other animals living in harmony. There is also a confusion of the time and placement for the setting of the play. Sabina openly tells the audience that she does not know if the play is set in the Stone Ages or in New Jersey (Wilder 32). Sabina also states that the world is not going to end and the characters in the play are exaggerating (Wilder 48). This shows that the characters of the play are creating their own purpose in life.

The message that I am receiving from the dinosaurs, humans and other animals living in harmony in an unknown setting while the characters of the play create their own purpose in life shows me that Wilder believes that Existentialism is absurd. Wilder is stating that one will not know how humans were created or why humans exist. The coexistence of dinosaurs, humans and other animals living peacefully together shows Wilder's view that Existentialists will never be able to figure out why different animals are not able to coexist in the same environment. The unknown setting in the play states that those involved in the study of human existence should give up and stop trying to figure why humans are where they are or where they are not. The created purpose for the characters in the play states that existentialists need to quit looking for the purpose of human existence. I feel that Wilder states that Existentialism is pointless and the non-serious attitude being taken towards the play states that Existentialism should not be taken sriously. Wilder displays, through the play, that people can never figure out why we, as humans, exist, why we are where we are today, and our purpose in life. What do you feel Wilder is trying to portray Existentialism as in The Skin of Our Teeth?

A Revelation or Desperation?

The Malignant Scapegoats of King Lear written by Derek Cohen made many interesting points, however, one sentence in particular caught my eye: “it is it’s villains who find themselves recurring to values of good and evil, order and chaos, as they face their ends” (Cohen 373). The process of death ultimately leads to eternal rest; however, it also serves as a last minute awakening. After realizing death is approaching, Edmund experiences a change of heart; rather than commit evil wrongdoings, he is determined to become a man of virtue. In my opinion, one recognizes his or her wrongdoings and mistakes in life when faced with death. Does Edmund truly wish to become a good person? Personally, I do not think he does. Death is a reality beyond Edmund’s control. Death threatens and frightens him. Edmund’s attempt to heroically spare Cordellia’s life is done out of fear; Edmund does not know what the afterlife has planned for him. If in fact one’s afterlife is determined by the life they lead on Earth, Edmund would have to drastically change his ways. I feel Edmund reveals Cordellia’s location as a desperate attempt to redeem the evils he has committed during his life time. I do not think Edmund has truly experienced a revelation. To prove the insincerity of Edmund’s new found moral intentions, Shakespeare consciously ends the play with Cordellia and Lear’s death. Edmund’s fate in the afterlife was set and more importantly, his effort towards redemption had failed.

Is King Lear Insane?

Throughout the play of Shakespeare’s King Lear, the reader notices how insane Lear becomes. After he found out Goneril and Regan did not love him, he became angry and upset. His insanity starts to reveal itself in Act 3. In Act 3 Scene 4, Lear relates his situation to Edgar saying, “Didst thou give all to thy daughters, and art thou come to this?” (Shakespeare 139). When in reality, Edgar’s situation had nothing to do with daughters betraying their father. Lear cannot see anyone’s pain but his own. Lear perceives himself to be insane, but is he really insane? Or is he just upset because his daughters have done him wrong? Daniels states, “They are not suffering from any illness when they made their donations; what they were suffering from was an incomplete knowledge of the character of their children” (Daniels 10). I tend to agree with this statement because Lear was perfectly fine before he gave his land away. Lear did not realize how selfish his daughters were. I also believe his banishment of his most precious and loyal daughter made him even more upset. His emotions lashed out in an unusual manner making one assume he was insane.

Selfishness

The reader learns in Act 4 Scene1 that Gloucester wants to commit suicide. “There is a cliff, whose high and bending head looks fearfully in the confined deep. Bring me but to the very brim, of it, and I’ll repair the misery thou dost bear…” (Shakespeare 177). There are many reasons for his desire. It seems the primary reason is the guilt he feels over the hurt he caused Edgar by banishing him. Gloucester chose to believe his deceptive son, Edmund, over his innocent son, Edgar. Gloucester is also scared that Edgar might be dead.
There are other reasons Gloucester wants to kill himself. For instance, Gloucester may be scared because people keep trying to kill him. Regan and Cornwall try to kill him and Oswald tries as well. Gloucester may not want to live in fear any longer. One could also think that Gloucester wants to commit suicide because his life is no longer worth living since his eyes were gauged out. Because he became blind, he may feel he has no reason to live.
Gloucester’s suicide would have been a selfish act. Gloucester seems to be in despair over the course his life has taken, particularly over the choice he made to banish Edgar. Gloucester wants to kill himself to relieve his own guilt. Possibly he believes that expressing such an intention will cause Edgar to feel sympathy toward him and forgive him.
If Gloucester wanted to commit suicide because of the guilt he felt from hurting Edgar, he should have realized that his suicide would hurt Edgar even more. If Gloucester commits suicide, he is adding to his sons’ pain, not relieving it. Gloucester should recognize that Edgar would rather accept his father’s apology than to have to cope with the tragedy of his father’s death.

Loyalty

What is the value in friendship? What is the value in family? A better question may be; What is the value in loyalty? Very few characters remain loyal to their loved ones throughout the play. There is irony in the betrayal that occurs in Shakespeare’s King Lear. While Lear believes he can trust his two eldest daughters, when they are given the throne, they do everything in their power to drive him out of the kingdom. Similarly, Gloucester’s bastard son plots to overtake his father’s name. In Act 1 Scene 4, the fool states, “Thou mad’st thy daughters thy mothers. For when thou gav’st them the rod and put’st down thine own breeches.” Although Lear constantly criticizes the fool, he is correct in that the king should have known better than to trust Goneril and Regan. It was clear they were insincere in their dramatic claims of love for him.

Cordelia and Egdar are banished from their father’s lives’ although they are the most loyal and respectable children. Lear’s most honorable nobleman, Kent was banished along with Cordelia, but instead of going against the king, Kent also remains loyal. In the end of the play, both Lear and Gloucester realize they have been wronged by their children and in return, wronged the people that were most loyal to them.