Anton Chekhov fought with the famous Stanislavski for staging his play The Cherry Orchard as a tragedy. According to Chekhov, the play about a wealthy family forced to give up their house and orchard to a man who had started life as a simple serf on their estate should be seen solely as a comedy. Historically speaking, comedy and tragedy are the oldest genres of drama and can typically be differentiated based on their ending: a comedy ends happily, while a tragedy has a much more pessimistic resolution. Chekhov claims that he wrote The Cherry Orchard to be performed as a rather specific subgenre of comedy, a farce. What differentiates farce from other types of comedy is the introduction and use of broader humor, eccentric events, and occasionally obscene content. Konstantin Stanislavski, famous for inventing the “Method” school of acting, ignored the author's stated intent and, instead, foreshadowing the New Criticism around the corner, chose to stage the show according to his personal interpretation of it as tragedy (Haslam 24). . Stanislavski's choice became the standard method of producing The Cherry Orchard, as subsequent directors avoided the considerable problems associated with staging the play according to the author's vision. The main obstacle blocking the path to audiences viewing The Cherry Orchard as a farce is that strict adherence to Greek definitions of tragedy precludes exploration of the play's political idealism as comedy. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Tragedy has been classified as a drama that follows the downward spiral of a character who, while noble, is also afflicted by what has happened to be known as the tragic flaw or, as Aristotle described it, hamartia. Hamartia is not so much a character flaw as an error in judgment that sends the hero on his path to a tragic ending (Aristotle 27). Tragedy differs from comedy not only in the way events unfold, but also in the way characters are presented, and this may be the crux of the matter as to whether a presentation of The Cherry Orchard as a farce would undermine the rigid political ideals of many of us. its characters. Tragic characters are ennobled through high poetry and great scenes of tragic importance that lead to the one thing you don't expect from a comedy, even if it occasionally contains: catharsis. Catharsis is a Greek dramatic term that has come to mean a spiritual purification. In its original meaning, however, Aristotle created the term as a response to Plato's fear that poetry led men to act irrationally. Aristotle postulates that through catharsis people can be cured of a harmless purge of repressed emotional disorders through fictional representations of deep psychological anxiety (Aristotle 27). This is heady stuff and clearly reveals the importance for the Greeks to distinguish between comedy and tragedy. The problem as far as Chekhov is concerned is that The Cherry Orchard doesn't conform perfectly to the ideals of Aristotelian tragedy, but it still features characters who exhibit hamartia, meaning that their errors in judgment result in what for them is a rather tragic ending What a tragic ending. a happy ending. Furthermore, although the resolution of the work cannot truly be described as cathartic, it retains the power to invoke the sense of pity which is also aintegral element of the tragedy (Haslam 46). Further complicating the matter is that, unlike most tragedies, the humor of The Cherry Orchard is undeniable, although this humor is only evident in brief passages. established as tragedy is whether the comedy succeeds in undermining the tragic realism and political idealism that are vital to the contemporary enjoyment of a work that, it seems, can be performed as both farce and tragedy. Returning to Aristotle, the definition of comedy differs from that of tragedy because comedy is simply an imitation so feared by Plato. The primary Aristotelian differentiation between tragedy and comedy is found at the crossroads of hamartia. The infamous tragic flaw is rarely discovered in comedy; in its place Aristotle finds ridiculous flaws of a much lower order (Cooper 5-8). The difficulty in considering the political seriousness of The Cherry Orchard is probably due, at least in part, to this mistaken assumption that comedy is of a lower order than tragedy. Indeed, contemporary critics have coined a new phrase to allow the introduction of comic elements into the tragic setting: tragicomedy. Aristotle would no doubt find this disturbing. It's equally disturbing from a modern perspective that, while more open to allowing comedy to contain profound themes, is still universally resistant to giving equal weight to pure comedy and pure drama. The traditionally Aristotelian comic character is conceived with the intention of drawing laughs, but even in Greek comedy satire was the predominant genre. Satire works best when applied through a deadpan imitation of seriousness; attempting to satirise, for example, an Ingmar Bergman film by replacing its crude imagery, long takes and sparse dialogue with the manic elements of farce would result in complete failure. The Cherry Orchard manages to blend the serious with the comic, presenting itself as a comedy without compromising the seriousness of the characters who express political ideals. For example, the player's ending is neither entirely comical nor entirely tragic; Ranevsky is probably in a better condition at the opera's conclusion than at the beginning. She was given the opportunity to do what few characters in a tragedy are allowed: avoid the mistakes of her past and move forward. Ranevsky is second only to the orchard itself in importance and the sympathy she naturally feels comes very close to attributing certain elements of the tragic hero to her. There is a certain legitimacy in this concept even structurally as the forward movement of the work follows its journey. Political idealism very often succeeds in arousing sympathy; it draws laughter just as easily. Chekhov's genius is in creating a play that dares to challenge both perspectives on the validity of idealistic hope. This duality is no better represented than in the character of Boris Simeonov-Pishchik, who in contemporary terms is a tragicomic character. While his pleas throughout the play are presented as comedy, what lies beneath that veneer is a very serious, even tragic situation. This is Chekhov finding the fundamental connection that ties tragedy to comedy, with boundless enthusiastic optimism as a ribbon. What makes the scenes in which Boris asks Ranevsky for help out of his debts avoid real tragedy is not necessarily because they are presented comically, but because the comedy serves to further emphasize the double-edged sword of a vision idealistic. Consider the following lines spoken by Pishchik: "My father, may he rest in peace, loved his little joke and, talking about the, 2005.