6 Characters doing something

I really have no idea what this absurdest play would be classified under. There were just all kinds of stuff going on. It was sort of like theater for dummies mixed with a self-help book, a bunch of philosophy, a soap opera topped off with a bit of Jerry Springer. I could tell the author wanted to make some point about the truth in theater and art in general but I’m not really sure what point he was trying to make. I’m also pretty sure the author of this play was doing some serious drugs at the time he wrote it. I was pretty shocked about how scandalous the family situation was. This play was really difficult to read because I was so confused by the characters constantly contradicting themselves and each other. I felt like the manager at the end when he decides this whole play was a waste of time. I feel like there might have been something good in there but I’m just way to confused to figure it out. I feel like most people don't have time to sit down and weed through all the craziness going on in this play to find the meaning. My state of confusion was constant during the whole play from the first word to the last word.

Six Characters in Search of an Author

To quote the Manager in this play, “I don’t understand this at all.” Between constantly trying to figure out who was talking and trying to understand if there was, in fact, a plot at all to this play, I barely was able to make it through the whole thing. A great amount of confusion came having to go back and forth reading the character names to figure out who was speaking. There is a group of characters that are the company and they are the “real” actors. Then there is a production team of sorts, which includes the manager and the director. Finally there are the six characters in search of an author, as the title of the play states. The six characters are characters from plays that the authors did not finish. The play seems to consist of the actors attempting to put on a scene, a series of arguments, and finally the death of two characters. At the end of the play the director is left wondering if it was all real or not, and I found myself thinking the same thing when I finished reading it. I understand that this is an absurdist play, but I just found myself completely unable to follow it. I sort of see the point in exploring the relationship between actors, characters, and authors, however the whole play seemed to be lost on me. I also think that perhaps something was lost in the translation from Italian to English, as some of the wording seems odd. I would definitely have to read this play several more times for it to begin to make sense to me.  

El Nogalar

Reading El Nogalar is initially a rather interesting experience.  Having studied The Cherry Orchard freshman year, I thought the parallels the play drew to Chekhov's work were pretty neat, and I applauded Tanya Saracho for being able to take the cherry orchard to the Mexican border and into today's society.  However, after re-reading The Cherry Orchard this year, I found Saracho's changes a bit problematic when being compared to the original, as really Saracho has less adapted Chekhov's story and more told her own original one, drawing on only the Cherry Orchard's skeleton and fleshing out the rest on her own.

What I found most interesting is that Saracho reduced the cast to four main women and Lopahkin's character - renamed Lopez - because she felt the story rested on the female characters.  At first, I wondered why she thought this, as the women of the story really don't work to save the estate any more than the men do.  However, seeing her approach to her play, I do agree that the original was at least more focused on the women and their lives, rather than featuring them working to save the estate.

El Nogalar

After reading both The Cherry Orchard and El Nogalar I would have to say I preferred Chekhov's play best. I liked the social upheavals surrounding The Cherry Orchard better than the whole drug cartel situation of El Nogalar. Also, the ending of Chekhov's play was more final, hearing the destruction as they left. Also, Mexico scares me so that could potentially be the basis for my opinion. Overall I would contend that the original story is simply better than the modern adaptation.
Although the plays are basically the same, the difference in social climate and cultural issues is interesting. There is the same idea of losing wealth and land and a change in social order, however as I said, I find the Russian turn of the 20th century socio-economic forces at work.

The Real El Nogalar ..hmmm

When I heard of this play, over the summer, I thought it the title was cool. Then I started reading the play, and I began to fall in love. The language that is used, Spanglish, is exactly the way I speak; I mix English words with Spanish phrases and visa versa. It was very natural for me to read and understand this play. As you may know, I absolutely loathe reading and I am quite slow at it, but this recreation of The Cherry Orchard was beautifully written and visually enticing.
My favorite character was a mix between Lopez and Dunia. Both were spicy and always had a comeback for smart words. I liked Dunia because she respects her mother and watches what she says in her presence, while still having fun with her. Lopez reminds me of myself, he is very protective, fun, and knows what to do in serious situations. The story, because it is based on a Chekov play is familiar and still hits certain points; like modern vs. classic. I cannot wait to see how it is going to be produced at Loyola this winter. 

el nogalar

       I have to say that throughout the play, El Nogalar, I was unsure of my feelings and my reaction it to. The Cherry Orchard was very original, and though El Nogalar is an adaptation, it was hard for me to not think about the characters from The Cherry Orchard. This is not to say that I didn't enjoy El Nogalar. The ending of the play is very satisfying and surprising. I was happy to see that Lopez and Dunia may become romantically involved and leave everyone else behind. The shifting of the social order was true to life, so to read about that in a play that incorporates the Mexican drug cartels was refreshing. I thought it was a little corny to have email be a part of this play, but it served its purpose.
       Though this has not been one of my favorite plays to read, I would love to see it on stage. This adaptation of The Cherry Orchard has meaning to a different group of people who were not necessarily effected by reading or seeing The Cherry Orchard. The passion in this play made it hard for me to stop reading, it was a nice change of pace from The Cherry Orchard.

El Nogalar

I feel it’s necessary to begin my El Nogalar blog by first mentioning Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard.  After all, it is a take on it and seems only fair to the somewhat-predecessor.  In regards to my thoughts on The Cherry Orchard: I loved the storyline.  I thought the play was able to demonstrate a very interesting take on the struggle of identity that comes along with change.  It does this through the complexity of its characters, most specifically, Lubov’s character.  The story gives such a heartbreaking portrayal of her.  Unable to face the reality that has come through tragedies in her life, she chooses to pretend they do not exist and has this beauty and grace about her.  I love characters like this and that is most likely one of my main attractions to the play.  It’s such a timeless story of running from your problems that while reading it, I couldn’t help but think how much I would actually love to see it be remade into a movie.  I know this can often be a terrible thing for a play you enjoy, but I think it could do very well.  Through the storyline and each character’s complexity, Chekhov accomplishes the illustration of a play that paints a tragic picture, edged with an alluring humour that underlies it.

Now that I have gone on my short tangent of my admiration of The Cherry Orchard, I feel I can give my opinion of Tanya Saracho’s El Nogalar.  My first thoughts on the play: unfortunate.  I really did not enjoy it.  I realize it’s supposed to simply be a very loose modern take on the play’s basic ideas, but it should not even be compared in the least.  The writing was poorly done, especially with its forced pop-culture references.  With all do respect to Saracho, especially since I know nothing else about her or her work, the play reminded me of something a junior high student might have been assigned to do in a creative writing class.

                                                                                                    

El NOGALAR YALL

El Nogalar is an impressive and original adaptation of Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard. Set in Mexico, the Characters are faced with similar issues on their Pecan Orchard. Maite, like Ranevksy is living her life in rosy hues or in other words, refusing to embrace reality and get along with the current times. Instead of being in Paris like Ranevksy, Maite is off in New York ignoring Lopez. There is this palpable connection with the land (the pecan orchard) and the struggle between memory and reality and the loss what was along with the gaining of what now is. As the play goes on there is this competition between Mother and daughter, which expresses the strength and loyalty, as well as connection between the family and this land. The land means everything to them and as soon as the estate is in jeopardy so becomes the family. After Lopez admits to buying the land, Maite and Valeria begin a subtle rivalry. When Dunia begins to throw herself at Lopez, it becomes a class issue as well as a moral issue for Dunia. This show is one of family, contemporary times, betrayal, class and power.

            The family in times realizes the importance of this situation as their past morphs right before them into the future making this play and exciting, dramatic whirlwind of eevents.

El Nogalar, The Stolen "Orchard"

First off let me say the world is disappointing.  Why is it disappointing?  Because people do not know how to come up with their own original ideas!  I was not intrigued by El Nogalar, even though I went in with an open mind, because the whole time I could not separate myself from comparing Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard!  I was prepared to read an entirely new story but there were too many similarities in every aspect: characters, setting, symbols!  It almost feels as if she took Chekhov's idea and for lack of a better term bastardized it.  The implementation of a sexual relationship between Maite and Lopez was appalling for me.  Did Tanya Saracho really think that the only way to make her play different was to include sexuality and technology?  Change the setting, change the time period, eliminate the men...completely new play and new idea--WRONG!  I could not get past these things to enjoy the play at all.  The only spark of creativity in the play was the choice to make the higher ups in society part of the drug cartel.  This innovative allusion to the aristocracy and evil deeds was the only redeeming quality of originality that I could gather.  The fiery passion of the Spanglish, Spanish, English mixture of language was almost overbearing.  For one who does not speak Spanish, this play would be completely problematic at times.  Overall, I could not see the point she was trying to make because relating Chekhov to the society of today doesn't have to be done through technology and SEX!  Chekhov's work speaks for itself even today and reaches people without the temptation of modern day greed, over-sexuality, or drug use.  You want to make a statement about social change and justice?  NEWSFLASH! You do not have to come out and say the obvious problems to still be talking about them through your characters actions and interactions!  Saracho, didn't you learn anything from Chekhov before you stole his idea? The notion of taking someone else's idea...adaptation is one thing, but El Nogalar is in a category all its own labeled, THIEVERY!  Not a fan at all.  However, I am interested in seeing Loyola's production this fall.  Perhaps its similar to romanticism for me, I might need to see it performed to truly understand what its meant to teach me.  That is all...before I fly off the handle haha.

El Nogalar

I want to start off by saying that I absolutely loved this play and I can’t wait to see it performed on campus this semester. No offense to Chekhov, but I may like this play even better than The Cherry Orchard. The adaptation that Tanya Saracho has written is so incredibly refreshing. It is remains a talk-y play but the updated and modified Spanglish language is fresh. The drug-war ridden Mexico is a far cry from 19^th century Russia. Maite, Saracho’s answer to Ranevsky is bold, firery, and beautiful. The actresses playing her are often not much older than those playing her daughters. She is a total force of nature that seems to be the center of the play. El Nogalar seems to have become a sexier, more passionate version of The Cherry  Orchard. The bold choice of the playwrite to make Maite and Lopez’s relationship much more sexual than Ranevsky and Lopahkin’s ever was is interesting. Although the characters still refuse to actually do anything about their problems, these characters feel like what Chekhov’s would be life with more life pumped into them.

I think El Nogalar is sultry and charismatic with vibrant characters. The characters are feisty and have much bigger personalities that the characters in The Cherry Orchard. The play is a fresh, modern take on a historic piece of theatre. 

El Nogalar - Andrew Gude

El Nogalar is a retelling of the cherry orchard using a mexican border estate rather than the Russian aristocracy. Several of the characters from The Cherry Orchard are either cut or rolled into one in this adaptation. Also, the themes are slightly altered in order to fit into the plight of Mexican citizens, particularly women, by the drug cartels. 

As an adaptation of Chekhov’s original work, El Nogalar does not maintain the same dynamics between the characters and the ‘orchard’. The adaptation puts much more emphasis on the dangerous environment the women are in, rather than highlighting a change in the society’s structure as a whole. Lopez is constantly talking to the scary man on the hill through his blackberry. Where are the corresponding incidents in The Cherry Orchard? This play, for me at least, reads much more like an original play that plagiarizes specific elements of The Cherry Orchard when it is convenient to the plot, rather than a well-thought out homage/adaptation. In particular, the relationship between Lopez and the rest of the characters is no where near as deep as Lopakhin and the Ranevskies. Lopez, as the only man in El Nogalar takes on much more of a power position than Lopakhin in Chekhov’s version. 

Pop That Cherry... Orchard

I've read Chekhov before, and I have actually done some scenes from this play, but I have never read it until this class. I personally was not a fan of this play, it bored me somewhat. As you know by now, I'm not the biggest reader and Chekhov's writing isn't the easiest thing to look at for a slow and uninterested  reader. But the story itself has some good things going on. My favorite character was Ravensky, mainly because she's the protagonist and she is somewhat relate-able: expressing love and just having a generally kind demeanor. I love that she has such a strong connection to the cherry orchard, because i can easily sympathize with her when everything turns upside-down, but she's an adult and needs to realize that it's not the end of the world; that might have been too harsh.
 I also love the subtle battle of the modern world versus the unchanging past. Socially, it's a major issue this day in age and I think if people can look into that, they would realize that the world (the U.S. especially) is going this change everyday with politics and government shinnanigans. But overall, I was generally bored throughout this play, and it seemed to move slow; me reading it when I was extremely exhausted doesn't help that, but still, I am not a fan.

The Cherry Orchard

Most works require knowledge of the authors life and social climate surrounding it. This is true for Chekov's The Cherry Orchard as well, however more so than other Chekov works. It is interesting that Chekov chose his final play to be the one that almost mirrors his personal financial and domestic issues along with the socio-economic forces at work in Russia at the turn of the 20th century. Apparently he was overly secretive about his final work even with his wife. Knowing that his early works are comedies makes this last play all the more important. Although he intended for it to be a comedy the director, Stanislavsky, decided to interpret it as a tragedy which I think was an obvious choice for a director. Seeing as this work so closely relates to Chekov's life, one would assume he would find the story tragic, however even as he was ill he managed to find the humor in his life's upheavals.
I don't have any strong feelings one way or another about the play which probably means I should read it again, but I do find the context incredibly interesting. I like it when a work reflects the world around it and the author that created it. The whole idea of losing your estate and hearing something you love fall is ridiculously depressing and I find it difficult to create a comedy out of that. This is the first Chekov work I have read so far in college, however I would be interested to see how the other ones are in comparison to his final play, The Cherry Orchard. 

Chekov's Cherry Orchard

While Chekov has grown from one of my adored and favorite playwrights to a more shadowed admiriable playwright, I still love The Cherry Orchard.  Three Sisters and The Cherry Orchard are probably the only two Chekovian plays that I hold dear in my heart, and the only two of his plays that actually taught me a lot about societal conventions and unrequited love.  The themes that I love in Chekov's Cherry Orchard pertain to mortality, love, society, and holding onto the past.  Death is mentioned quite a lot in this play, especially when it comes to the main character of Lubov.  Her dead son and husband haunt her thoughts and plague the past memories of the family's beloved cherry orchard.  Even towards the end of the play we hear the departing relatives describe the estate as, "at the end of it's life."  Just like the shifting social climate, death is inevitable. The entire play is about the death of a way of life.  Even though this play is assosciated with social change, it exudes love from all angles.  Chekov just couldn't write a play without showing the human condition in love of all kinds, unrequited love, love between master and servant, spiritual love, etc.  Lubov's devotion to love adds a great contrast to Trofimov's straight sociological perspective.  The societal climate of Russia at the time is also of great importance in this play.  After the freeing of the serfs in Russia there is this flux period where the servants don't know what to do with themselves and the aristocrats are going nowhere but down!  Trofimov's monologues throughout the play are great commentary for this social confusion.  While Yasha and and Dunyasha are acting high class, poor Fiers is 87 and only knows his servanthood.  It is overall extremely interesting to envision the upperclass society of the time (and even of today's time) dealing with a revolution and a role reversal that acts as a kind of forced atonement for the sins of their aristocractic status.  Losing their cherry orchard was bad enough, but to have a former servant, Lopahkin, buy it at the auction was a brutal but important moment for Lubov to come to terms with the past and the future that awaits her.  Lopahkin's monologue was the true Chekovian moment for me, when he states:
    
LOPAHKIN: The cherry orchard is mine now, mine! [Roars with laughter] My God, my God, the cherry orchard's mine! Tell me I'm drunk, or mad, or dreaming. ... [Stamps his feet] Don't laugh at me! If my father and grandfather rose from their graves and looked at the whole affair, and saw how their Ermolai, their beaten and uneducated Ermolai, who used to run barefoot in the winter, how that very Ermolai has bought an estate, which is the most beautiful thing in the world! I've bought the estate where my grandfather and my father were slaves, where they weren't even allowed into the kitchen. (3.151)
This monologue is one of the most interesting dramatic moments in the play. This divided allegiance Chekhov creates is what makes me love this play.  Chekov really knows how to strike a cord about social change and how real people deal with it.  But would this play be considered a problem play?  Or would it be called a realist piece?  I'm not sure.

The Cherry Orchard

Thinking about Anton Chekhov’s play The Cherry Orchard, there is one word that leaps immediately to mind: confusing.  The play has been translated from Russian and as a result there is some confusion in certain word translations.  There are footnotes left for these, but the real difficulty I found was with the actual names of the characters.  The names are so heavily Russian-based that I found it extremely difficult to follow the characters, along with the plot in general, when I first began the play.  With this in mind, I generally find that I have trouble following most plays when reading them.  I find it difficult to keep up with characters, as I tend to focus on the dialogue, so the storyline tends to get confusing and consequently lost as well.   With this difficulty in reading plays with characters whose names come easily, plays which contain characters whose names are much more unrelatable, are understandably that much more hard to comprehend.    Recognizing this from the beginning of the play, I decided to try something.  After finishing the first act, I went back and made a list of all the characters in the play.  The very short introductions included in the character list, Ranevsky: landowner, and so on, allowed me to vaguely place them with what I had already read.  As I then went on reading the acts, I continued to make small notes of the characters.  This helped greatly in keeping track of the characters and overall plot.  Once I had a better grasp on the characters and story, I actually found that I really enjoyed the play.  Although I still found many of the character’s names difficult to retain and had to continue to look at the list, I was actually able to find the humour and tragedy that I really don’t think I would have recognized had I not made the character outlines.  I think I will definitely be using this tactic when reading future plays.

Chekov wont go AWAY!!!!

I will love when the day comes that I no longer have to discuss Anton Chekov and his play The Cherry Orchard. Every since my freshman year at Loyola, there have been a few professors that treat Chekov as if he were God himself. From their descriptions, I was honestly thrilled to learn about this great writer that I had never known about, but to my surprise, I did not care for his writing. I obviously cannot say that his writing is not decent, but the thing about his writing that I do not enjoy is his subject matter. In the case of The Cherry Orchard, I think this play is boring, stagnate, and dull. Nothing happens. There is a lot of complaining and walking around and no one does a thing! I understand that that is how the culture was at the time, especially for the women, but man do I find this play dull. I think Chekov did great things for his time, but in modern culture and theatre, I think he has been left behind. I do not think that his work will survive the next hundred years as nothing more than a novelty of the time. If we were to research how often his plays were produced even thirty years ago compared to now we would find that the numbers have consistently gone down. On the other hand though, I feel like Chekov has done great foundation work for other playwrights to elaborate upon. Like in the case of El Nogalar, by Tanya Saracho, Saracho takes Chekov’s original The Cherry Orchard and reinvents it for a modern and contemporary audience. While I still find it a little dull, Saracho did a much better job keeping my attention simply because there is more that I can relate to or at least know someone who can to the situations and characters in the play.

Chekhov's last play

The Cherry Orchard was the last of Chekhov’s plays to premiere before his death. It opened in January of 1904. Seven months later, Anton Pavlovich Chekhov died at a German healing center in the Black Forest.* Thus, it was well-known during the run of this particular work that the playwright was not well, at least by those who were close to him. Considering the subject matter of this play: a family’s (or perhaps one woman’s) attempt to save their legacy, their honor; it begs the question as to what Chekhov may have been thinking about the condition of his own mortality. 

Chekhov made it known that he meant many of his plays, often mistaken as tragedies, to be funny. He enjoyed mocking the upper classes for their blindness to change and an unwillingness to adapt. This theme is nowhere more apparent than in The Cherry Orchard. Ranevskaya is Chekhov’s typical fool. She has lived away from her beloved estate for five years. Now the aristocracy is in ruins and Ranevskaya has missed every chance to save the property. The solutions that do present themselves, such as building summer cottages on part of the orchard, are all shot down, and in the end Ranevskaya’s worst fear is realized. The estate is sold and the orchard chopped down.

It is said that Chekhov’s impending death became more and more apparent to those around him as it drew nearer. The opposite is apparently true of Chekhov himself. In the last months of his life he thought he was getting better. He is said to have written letters describing how delighted he was to be improving and making inconsequential small-talk. Was Chekhov guilty of the same ignorance as the characters he so loves to torture? Did Chekhov approach his own illness with the same detachment from reality as Ranevskaya and her debt? Who is to say?

Perhaps Chekhov was a little harsh on his protagonists. Perhaps he attributed too much of their blindness and indecisiveness to stupidity and ignorance. He may have forgotten for an instant, the humans need to hope in order to persevere through traumatic experiences. Just as Chekhov hoped he was getting better, even as he was moving closer to death.

Cherries

   This was my first time reading The Cherry Orchard. I enjoyed it quite thoroughly for the most part. the humor was a little dark and twisted, and I felt like there were quite a few hidden meanings, such as the popping of string. My favorite character would have to be Charlotte, she seems to have led the most interesting and "out there" life out of anybody else in the play. It is ironic that Charlotte is one of the most experienced in the play, but she is stuck playing the role as the clown meant to amuse everyone else. It is satisfying to know that she gets off sometimes by making making fun of her employers without them knowing it.
   Ravensky is the lovely protagonist in this play, she is quite adored by her readers and her fellow characters. So of course, naturally she is a favorite of mine as well. Her character exhibits love in many aspects, such as kindness and passion. She is the only one in the play to have a lover. Her connection and attachment to the cherry orchard in which she grew up is endearing, but when compared to Lopakhin's feelings towards the property, Ranevksy almost seems naive.  Overall i enjoyed this play, it was slightly depressing, but it left me still thinking and wondering about the characters I had just learned about.

Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard, while not my favorite Chekhov play, is still one of my favorites. Perhaps moreso than in his other plays, Chekhov works in The Cherry Orchard to create both a satirical snapshot of aristocratic life, and a drama of social mobility and class distinctions in turmoil.  More exciting than Three Sisters and less explosive with eccentric characters than Uncle Vanya, I find Cherry Orchard strikes a great balance and achieves its goal as a commentary on high society in crisis.

What I found interesting rereading the play were the gender roles. When asked why she cut out the male characters in El Nogalar, a modern-day retelling of sorts of The Cherry Orchard, Tanya Saracho argued that she felt the male characters didn't do much for the family's situation, adding that it was really the women who made a push towards progress.  In light of her views, I paid closer attention to each family member's role in the securing of the orchard.  I found that, with the exception of Lopahkin, Chekhov wrote most of the male characters to be comic symbols of the aristocracy's inaction.  Gayev represents the aristocracy's love of leisure; Trofimov espouses political ideals, but refuses to act when necessary; and Simeonov-Pishchik is always asking Ranevskaya for money.  It really is the women who attempt to save themselves, with Anya being the main push to save both her mother and the estate.

The Cherry Orchard

The Cherry Orchard is a play that I always enjoy reading. It is one of my favorite Chekhov plays, as well as being the last one he wrote. It makes sense that this particular story would be the last one Chekhov would tell. The character often struggle with the memory, or lack thereof, of their past and it effects their present and future. Perhaps as Chekhov was writing this play, probably knowing he was going to die soon, was struggling with the same thing.

The character I have always found most interesting is Ranevsky. She is the character most constantly plagued with the memories from her past. It is easy to run away from your problems and for five years, that is what she did. After the death of her husband and son she couldn’t stay in Russia, so she fled to Paris. As the imminent sale of the orchard draws near, it seems brave as Ranevsky returns to Russia, but she will only leave once again at the end of the play. She is always running away from something, and the rest of the characters in the play don’t know how to handle her most of the time, but they still love her. The other characters are able to sympathize with Ranevsky because of the obvious tragedy in her life, but they can’t understand the way she is going about her life. Ranevsky is spending money as if it is no object, even though the estate is going to be sold and the family has no money. Ranevsky is a character who needs help but will never ask for it. I feel bad for her. Instead she constantly is fleeing wherever she is to find something better, but never finds it.