Prove that the play at the bottom is a realistic work
Answers:
M. Gorky's play “At the Lower Depths” is one of the best realistic works of the writer. The author's skill allowed him to depict the inhuman living conditions in which the heroes of the work were forced to find themselves. People who vegetate “at the bottom” look miserable and pitiful; they are devoid of high feelings and aspirations. Poverty and hopelessness have led to the fact that people at the bottom have become cruel to others and even to themselves. The desolate inhabitants of the shelter were unable to fight fate. The work was created at a time of a serious economic crisis that erupted in Russia. The number of impoverished people left without means has become truly terrifying. Many night shelters appeared where the homeless and unfortunate people settled. The play shows the life of the inhabitants of the shelter without embellishment. The gloomy, semi-dark basement where the heroes of the work live looks like a cave. The low ceiling puts pressure on people. The wretchedness of everyday life and the hopelessness of life take their toll. People are losing their last human qualities, sinking and degrading more and more. Gorky himself wrote about this play: “It was the result of my almost twenty years of observations of the world of “former people” ....” The play can be perceived as a call for the transformation of society. The inhumanity of society is that it easily throws weak people who are unable to fight for their happiness to the margins of life. The characters in the play are broken, it becomes clear that there are unlikely to be positive changes in their lives. The work itself has its own characteristics. There is no conflict or resolution in the play. The lack of development of action is made up for by conversations. It is in conversations that the characters of the main characters are revealed. Each inhabitant of the shelter has his own “truth”, his own philosophy, his own idea of life. The characters in the play talk both about everyday affairs and problems, and about something more important that is not directly related to their lives. For example, Kvashnya talks about marriage. Her position is very simple, Kvashnya says: “For me to be a free woman, my own mistress, to fit into someone’s passport, for me to give myself to a man in a fortress - no! Even if he were an American prince, I wouldn’t think of marrying him.” Kleshch does not believe her, objects: “You will get married in Abramkoy...”. Kvashnya indignantly rejects his assumption. An argument breaks out. Kvashnya is trying to prove that he is right, pointing out to Kleshch that he “beat his wife half to death...”. The tick roughly cuts her off. This short dialogue indicates that the attempts of the heroes of the play to defend their “truth” lead to mutual insults and conflicts. It cannot be emphasized enough that all the inhabitants of the shelter do not respect not only those around them, but also themselves. They do not have a clear idea of their own place in the world. Everyone is aware of their wretchedness and restlessness. But awareness of the problem in itself cannot give a person anything. It only pushes us to find a new solution. This does not happen in the play. The characters talk a lot and willingly about the “truth.” But what they need it for, they cannot decide. For example, Kleshch says: “What a truth! Where is the truth? That's the truth! No work... no power! That's the truth! Shelter... there is no shelter! You have to breathe... here it is, the truth! Devil! Why... what do I need it for - really? Let me breathe... let me breathe! What is my fault?.. Why do I need the truth? Living is a devil - you can’t live... that’s the truth!.. Speak here - the truth! You, old man, console everyone... I'll tell you... I hate everyone! And this truth... damn it, damn it! Understood? Understand! Damn her! Some of the characters in the play are trying to find a “truth” that would at least a little brighten up their miserable life. For example, Nastya invents a love story. They laugh at her. But Nastya needs this fictitious “truth” so that life does not seem so hopeless. It seems to Nastya that if such love had been in her life, everything would have turned out completely differently. This is the girl's "truth" that has nothing to do with real life. Luke's position is that the truth that a person believes in is valuable to him. Luke says: “Let's go, honey! nothing... don't be angry! I know... I believe! Your truth, not theirs... If you believe, you had true love... that means you had it! Was!" Luke's words inspire hope, make you believe in what is dear to a person. Let it not be connected with what really is. But on the other hand, such “truth” can make you feel a little happier.
Similar questions
- Fill in the gaps in the sentences with modal verbs in the affirmative and negative form: must, mustn"t,needn"t,should,shouldn"t. 1.You ____take the keys.I"ve got them.
2.You____drive 120 km/h here.There is a speed limit.
3.You____come here more often.My children like you so much.
4.Sally_____work harder.
Philosophical issues are expressed in the heroes' disputes about man, the categories of evil and good, about truth and humanism. The catalyst for these polylogues is the image of Luke, who preaches maxims like “A person can do anything - if only he wants to.” Satin supports Luke’s ideas, but does not talk about pity for people, but that they need to be taught to use freedom. Both of them understand and see: a person is humiliated, but they want to “elevate” him in different ways. On the issue of truth, Luke and Satin defend opposing points of view. Luke preaches and uses lies for salvation, and Satin, on the contrary, considers the truth to be saving, but a bitter and disgusting mixture for the improvement of society.
The course of events refutes Luka's utopian philosophy: the actor commits suicide, Anna dies in an atmosphere of general indifference, Vaska Pepla is exiled to Siberia. The preacher leaves, leaving behind him deceived people with vain expectations. The specificity of philosophical drama lies in the fact that Satin’s ideas (fair views defended by the author himself) are at odds with his way of life, that is, he is just the voice of the writer, a shell for thought as the basis of the work. The hero himself is secondary, what he says is important. The ideal of man is blurred in a monologue about a proud man, it is abstract and has no logical connection to Satin: no one should be equal to him, but his passionate speech in defense of human dignity is an exemplary idea that everyone must take into arms against lies.
Interesting? Save it on your wall!1. Realism of the play “At the Bottom”.
2. Heroes of the work.
3. The author’s attitude towards the inhabitants of the “bottom”.
M. Gorky's play “At the Lower Depths” is a striking example of a realistic work. The writer is already abandoning the romantic tendencies that were characteristic of his work. The realistic principle attracts the writer; he pays a lot of attention to socio-philosophical conflicts. Gorky himself can be called one of the most talented writers of his time. He brilliantly portrayed human characters; we have not the slightest reason to doubt their veracity. Gorky no less vividly depicted the everyday life against which events unfold. Life in Gorky is not just a collection of various details in the description of the situation. No, everyday life takes on special significance and grows to global proportions. It is no coincidence that life and existence are words of the same root. The living conditions in which a person happens to live necessarily influence his character and worldview.
The play “At the Bottom” is very interesting primarily for its characters. These are typical inhabitants of the “bottom”, as the name itself says. The life of all the inhabitants of the shelter was far from the best. They have nothing good, bright, or joyful. These people occupy the lowest rung of the social ladder. They have no illusions about their life; on the contrary, they are aware of the hopelessness of their existence. The peculiarity of the play “At the Bottom” is that it has no beginning or ending, which, in essence, contradicts this genre. There is no main plot conflict in the play. But there is a socio-philosophical conflict. And it is revealed not in actions, but in conversations. There is much more talk in the play than action. You could even say that there are practically no actions as such.
We understand well the philosophy of all the inhabitants of the “bottom”. They do not hide their beliefs. The limitations, wretchedness, and insignificance of their characters are obvious. The inhabitants of the “bottom” are cruel to each other. We see neither sympathy, nor respect, nor even friendly affections from them. A phrase such as “you’re a fool, Nastya...” seems to them something self-evident and quite normal. Ordinary human compassion is alien to the heroes of the play. Kleshch's wife dies, but no one tries to say even a kind word to the unfortunate woman. All the heroes of the work are cruel both to themselves and to others. And unhappy in this cruelty. Each hero has his own truth, or, conversely, the lack thereof.
The tick says: “What a truth! Where is the truth? That's the truth! No work... no power! That's the truth! Shelter... there is no shelter! You have to breathe... here it is, the truth! Devil! Why... what do I need it for - really? Let me breathe... let me breathe! Why am I to blame?.. Why do I need the truth? Living is the devil - you can’t live... this is the truth!.. Speak here - the truth! You, old man, console everyone... I'll tell you... I hate everyone! And this truth... damn it, damn it! Understood? Understand! Damn her! Social contradictions give rise to such an attitude towards life. Kleshch has nothing - no work, no shelter, no future. He doesn't need the truth, he doesn't see the meaning in his life. The bearer of a different philosophical principle is Luke. He does not try to seek the truth; faith in God is enough for him. This worldview allows the old man to put up with the hardships of life.
The play “At the Bottom” can be interpreted in two ways. On the one hand, the work can be interpreted as a harbinger of revolution. This is precisely the perception that was traditional quite recently. The play was viewed through the lens of social change. Unhappy, disadvantaged people were considered the bearers of revolutionary ideas. After all, their life was very bad, and the revolution could bring something good. The revolution would entail social changes, which would have a beneficial effect on the inhabitants of the “bottom”.
Now this interpretation of the work no longer seems unambiguous. After all, Gorky does not use direct calls for revolution. It only shows the unfortunate disadvantaged people. They have neither the strength nor the desire to change anything in life. Even if attempts are made, as for example by the Actor, they still turn out to be useless. The inhabitants of the “bottom” have no moral values. They are closed in on themselves, they are not interested in the people around them. They mockingly laugh at each other, as if they do not understand that by doing so they are humiliating themselves. Society has rejected all the inhabitants of the “bottom”; they have no moral principle that could become a support for further revival. Outcasts from society are not able to be reborn; their destiny is further degradation. The debates about life waged by the characters in the play are speculative and abstract. They don't know real life because it has passed them by. They do not know the beautiful, the sublime, the pure and the bright. Gorky calls the characters in the play “former people.” And he says that the work was the result of his “almost twenty years of observation of the world of “former people.” The author has no empathy or sympathy for his characters. And they don’t have high aspirations. And any attempts to save your inner world, at best, can be a departure into the world of dreams and illusions. Nastya reads romance novels in order not to notice the wretchedness of real life. The absence of high aspirations reveals the wretchedness and degradation of the tramps, the inhabitants of the bottom. Using their example, Gorky shows that lack of ideas and lack of will can never bring positive results. The life of the inhabitants of the “bottom” is meaningless, and they have no future.
The time and circumstances of life that gave rise to the social “bottom” prompted Gorky to turn to a new topic for him. In Kazan, Nizhny Novgorod, Moscow and St. Petersburg, the writer saw destitute people, outcasts from society, tramps thrown into basements and flophouses. The writer had a burning need to talk about them and even present them on the stage. Let everyone see the other side of life.
The play opens with an extended stage direction reproducing a cave-like basement. The mention of the latter is not accidental. People here are doomed to live some kind of antediluvian, prehistoric life, forced to lead a truly cave existence.
Further in this remark, heavy stone vaults are mentioned, which seem to put pressure on people, “wanting” to bend them down, to humiliate them. I vividly imagine the bunks on which Satin lies, inclined to be proud of his rags. I see on the left a small closet, fenced off with a chintz curtain, behind which lies the sick, dying Anna. Somewhere to the right is another closet, belonging to the thief Vaska Pepl, who has the opportunity to live separately, independently. In the center, behind the anvil, the former worker Kleshch is fussing around and intensely fixing something with his tool. I clearly see Bubnov, the cap-holder. Before my eyes appears an Actor suffering from alcoholism; The Baron, always quarreling with the prostitute Nastya; A Tatar with a wounded arm tied up.
Life has deprived all these people. She deprived them of the right to work, like the Tick; for a family, like Nastya; for well-being, like Baron; for a profession as an Actor. These people, who love freedom so much, have been essentially deprived of this benefit by life. And it’s no coincidence that they perceive their shelter as a prison,...
The characters may be fictional, but the events and time in which they exist are real. Gorky's prerequisites for writing the novel "Mother" appeared already at the end of the 19th century, although the novel itself was created only in 1907. The end of the 19th century can be characterized as the birth of the revolutionary movement and the formation of the socio-political consciousness of the working class.
This idea (the idea of revolution) runs through the entire novel. The writing of the novel was facilitated by the origin of the writer and his early acquaintance with revolutionaries. These connections were reflected in his further work. The novel "Mother" is an innovative work; it can be considered the central book in the writer's work. Perhaps it was to him that he went all his life, carrying the beginnings of this novel through all his work. Finally, in 1907, the novel was created. It was a troubled time for Russia - the time of the defeat of the first Russian revolution in 1905.
There are very few true fighters of the revolution who were truly devoted to its cause. The majority, frightened by the bloody massacres, became adherents of tsarism, the rest either abandoned the cause of the revolution or went over to the side of its enemies. But this did not matter to the “sons” of the revolution, and the novel shows precisely that turning point in the lives of the workers, when for them all the usual foundations of life collapse and the people rise to fight for their liberation. Liberation is not so much physical as moral. Workers stand for the right to vote, for their rights and freedoms, for respect for themselves and their families. One of the main problems of the work is the problem of the growth of the revolutionary consciousness of workers and the development of the proletarian movement.
It was in this book that, for the first time in his life, the hero of the novel became a revolutionary worker, whose meaning of life is the victory of the socialist camp. In his work, Gorky shows how the ideas of revolution are penetrating deeper and deeper into the masses and that the hero of the book is not alone, he has many supporters, both obvious and hidden. And no matter how hard the adherents of the autocracy try to preserve this regime and suppress the germs of the brewing revolution, they will not succeed. The growth of political self-awareness of the masses has already begun. And someday it will reach its highest point - its apogee. Then the wheel of history will not be able to be stopped or turned in the other direction. After all, Pavel did not immediately become a true revolutionary. His path to the revolution was difficult and complicated. It took him some time to find the key to the workers’ hearts. Only over time did Pavel gain the experience of a real fighter.
The task of Vlasov and his friends was to “go to the people,” that is, they had to bring the idea of revolution to the masses. And gradually, over time, they manage to win the trust of the workers. And then their propaganda becomes more and more active, and the circle of people who rise to fight becomes wider. Much work has also taken place in the village. The revolutionaries attached great importance to revolutionary propaganda among the peasants. And in this regard, Rybin’s role is great. It shows how from a spontaneous rebel he becomes a conscious revolutionary. The highest point of Paul's activity was the May Day demonstration. It represents the transition from small revolutionary circles of workers and intellectuals to a mass struggle against the oppressors. This is the historical path of the Russian working class.
The rise of the proletarian revolutionary struggle and its scope contribute to Paul’s ideological and political growth. After Pavel Vlasov becomes a revolutionary in the full sense of the word, he is arrested and then tried. At the trial we have a completely different person in front of us. Pavel Vlasov is not a defendant, he is a formidable judge of the autocracy and the bourgeois system. The right to be a judge gives him the title of a worker, the title of a revolutionary communist, the leader of the masses whom he organized for the struggle. And if in 1905 there were few people like Pavel, then in 1917 such guys made a revolution. Now we mainly talked about the main character of the novel - Pavel Vlasov, but why is everyone...
Gorky named his novel not after the name of his hero, but after the name, which is the name of the progenitor of the entire human race, all living things - Mother? Why still “Mother”? Apparently, because their mothers joined the fight against violence, inequality and lawlessness along with their children. In this regard, the image of Pelageya Nilovna, a woman who loves her son infinitely, is remarkable. I can say the same about any mother, but not every mother will understand and share the ideas and views of her own children, especially such radical ones. When we first meet Pelageya Nilovna, we see the image of a dark, downtrodden, submissive woman - a victim of an unbearable life.
But throughout the entire novel we have the opportunity to observe how Pelageya Nilovna is transformed into a person who personifies the formidable forces of an awakening, angry people, confident in their indestructible strength. The pages dedicated to Nilovna’s experiences made a great impression on me. During the arrest of Pavel and Nilovna, you understand that despite the fact that they will be imprisoned, the work of the revolution will continue. And it will end only with the victory of the proletariat. Why does the novel "Mother" reflect the features of realism in Gorky's work?
In my opinion, because in the novel the writer depicted the real reality inherent in the beginning of the October Revolution of 1917. Gorky assigns an important role in the novel to the theme of the heroic struggle of the working class for their rights and freedoms.
The novel is real because it is based on history: When reading this work, we understand that our people had no other choice. This is the realism of this work.
In what century did the annexation take place?
Large principalities of ancient Rus' Appanage principalities of Rus' table
Sphinx unsolved to the grave Alexander 1
Russian Tsar Peter the Great
Duel, injury and death of Alexander Pushkin