dlloyd505 In his adaption of Anton Chekhov's play, The Cherry Orchard, Mihalis Kakogiannis shows a great deal of respect for the 19th century Russian play. In fact, Mihalis shows so much respect for it that he tried to have the film flow and seem very much like a play. Although the technique is an interesting way of trying to adapt a play to film, it ultimately leaves the audience wishing for less of a boisterous staged feel and more of a subtle real life feeling that film can so wonderfully produce. To Mihalis' misfortune the over animated and often over dramatized characters do more to take the audience out of the film than it does to push them into the story. Although the staged feel to The Cherry Orchard does make the film seem to drag on without the interest one would find in a lifelike representation of the events, there is several very significant themes that are important to Russian history that come across very nicely in the film.One of the most interesting aspects of The Cherry Orchard is the way that we see the very different reactions to the emancipation of the serfs. If we look at the two "main" characters of the film, Madame Ranevskaya and Gayev, we see two people that are having a very hard time adjusting to the realities of the serfs being freed. They're not only in constant denial of the economic state of their estate but they are also oblivious to the possibility that former serfs are gaining both power and respect. If we look at how the film expresses the Raznichintzhe class, we see two different expressions. First we see Lopakhin that represents the emerging merchant class in Russian. Although Lopakhin was a former slave, by the end of the film we see that he wields the most respect and power through the active and hard work that he has done as a free citizen. Now on the other hand, Trofimov represents the Intelligentsia class that is emerging towards the later part of the 19th century. His nickname as the perpetual student gives away that he is not about working and doing business in a capitalist society, instead he talks of enacting greater change to help the uneducated freed serf class that now has a ton of freedom and not a whole lot to do with it. Now as Lopakhin showed one of the possibilities for freed serfs Firs showed another. Firs represents a relic of the past, a serf that was more content with being a serf and serving than being forgotten and left behind in the new society. Which is exactly what happens to firs at the end of the movie. Just like Firs, older serfs that could not enjoy the full expanse of their newfound freedom were in a way left behind by society. Although as a movie I believe that The Cherry Orchard could have been a little more intriguing had the director strayed further way from the play format, there are still many interesting aspects to the film that make it a enjoyable piece of Russian oriented cinema. Definitely, worth the watch if you have any interest in Russian life towards the end of the 19th century.

Michael The Cherry Orchard is Mihalis Kakogiannis' ambitious, if ultimately dissatisfying, film adaptation of Chekhov's famous play of the same name. In an attempt to remain true to the story's roots as a stage performance, Kakagiannis filmed the movie as if he were filming a live performance. While this approach is undeniably an artistically appealing gamble, we quickly find that the over the top acting and hasty scene transitions (perfectly befitting a stage) ultimately fail to translate smoothly onto the big screen. The film struggles to grab your attention early on (when it is most critical to engage the audience and establish a connection), but does come into its own about halfway through.Following the Russian abolition of serfdom in the mid-19th century, many noble families found themselves strapped for cash as they lacked the resources and skills required to maintain the estates previously granted to them and maintained by free labor. Set in this era, The Cherry Orchard introduces us to one of these financially struggling noble families on the brink of losing their beloved estate, known for its beautiful cherry orchard. Despite receiving sound advice on how to save the bulk of their estate (at the cost of the orchard itself), the family continuously brushes all logic aside as if waiting to be saved from their fate without having to give up anything in return or to lift a finger to help themselves. Because of this, the estate is seized and put up for auction, ultimately falling into the hands of an up-and-coming merchant whose family had been serfs at the estate for generations prior to abolition. This highlights both the waning power of noble society and the rising fortunes of the middle class in Russia at the turn of the century. Because the family would do nothing to save themselves, the film ends with them going their separate ways into the world as the sounds of axes echo in the background. The Cherry Orchard is being cut down, symbolizing the transition from the old world into the new. As the family leaves and the estate is boarded up, we the longtime family servant, who had served as a serf before the abolition and stayed loyal to the family, has been forgotten and locked inside to die. Earlier in the story, this servant had referred to the abolition of serfdom as a great misfortune, symbolizing that this is man who had long ago resigned himself to his fate. Here again, the man simply sits down without a fight, resigned to his misfortune. His fate, like that of the entire family, is left unknown.Overall, the movie was entertaining at times and utterly boring at others. Its approach was ambitious but, sadly, missed the mark. The actors themselves performed admirably, but even their skill could do little to distract from how badly stage acting so often translates to film acting and vice versa. The two arts are separate for a reason, and very rarely is their melding done correctly. The story itself was thought-provoking and entertaining, a testament to Chekhov's abilities, and once you've grown accustomed the style of the film it becomes infinitely more watchable. For fans of Russian history, it offers an interesting glimpse into Russian society at the turn of the century. For fans of Chekhov, it provides you with a glimpse of what his play would look like if performed and if you're unable to go see it live, as it should be seen. For fans of film...meh.

galvanoliver If at first you are put off by the acting and you feel like the acting is over exaggerated, you must know that this film was meant to be a play. The director chose to make this story a play and just film it as a play not a traditional movie. If you ignore the acting you can see the important content of the time. The film takes place at around the time the serfs are emancipated. So at this time the serfs are allowed to leave their masters and do as they wished. This impacted everyone, but especially the nobles. In this film we can see the nobles start to die down without the serfs. Many of the nobles get deep into debt which is what happened to the Ranevskaya family and without the serfs they were not able to make money to pay it off. The style to this film is not that appealing but the story gives us insight into the events that took place at the time.

shicovianista From the previous reviews I gather that this is where the elite meet to bleat. I wish those who are so afflicted by nearly everything in this lovely film could spell a bit better. I have seen several stage versions of this play, and I have read the play, so I was prepared to see the film. I agree with whoever it was who said it would appeal best to those who had seen or read the play and that is true. Not every film is for the popcorn crowd. I loved the atmosphere and that is something you cannot get in a stage play. How can acres of cherry trees in blossom be offensive to anyone? That falling-down hunting lodge seemed just right for that decaying family. The costumes were beautiful. There is not a single character in the story whom anyone could actually like, it's true, but by the end of the story you have been told so many things about them, if you pay attention, you can believe in them, which is better at times than merely being able to 'like' them. I believe Chekhov would have approved it.