Ostrovsky is known in literature as the “discoverer” of such a class as the merchants. It was he who first identified this type as a serious literary object, proved that this hero is also interesting and deserves no less attention than his predecessors, primarily the nobles. In this regard, Ostrovsky belongs to the writers of the so-called “natural school”, which in the second half of the 1840s. included such authors as Gogol (with some reservations), early Dostoevsky, Nekrasov, Grigorovich. Petty officials, station guards, organ grinders, inhabitants of the “bottom”, who became the heroes of their works, represent a remarkable phenomenon in Russian literature. Like his comrades, Ostrovsky portrayed such people in their usual environment, conducting their everyday conversations, paying attention to all sorts of little things, which, however, successfully complemented the overall portrait. The author's main achievement is probably that he managed to destroy the established image of a drunkard merchant who does not care about anything, and somewhat elevate him in the eyes of the reader. For example, the merchants Knurov and Vozhevatov ("Dowry", 1879), it seems, have a decent education, and therefore, probably, a fortune. At the beginning of the play, Knurov reads a newspaper, and not just any newspaper, but a French one. The shady traders from “Groza” never even dreamed of this. In general, educated merchants are rare in Ostrovsky, and ideal ones are completely absent. The same Knurov and Vozhevatov, using their wealth and power, gamble the fate of Larisa Ogudalova, deciding (without her knowledge) which of them will take her to the fair. In "The Thunderstorm" the reader encounters somewhat exaggerated portraits of merchants disfigured by the presence of power (Kabanov and Dikoy). These are basically Ostrovsky's merchants. Their main problem is money. If there are not enough of them (relatively speaking, of course), then all the merchant’s worries are where and how to get them (these issues are usually resolved in favor of some kind of deception); if there is a lot of money, then, in principle, the goal does not change, which speaks of greed, and, in addition, there is also added concern about how to protect this wealth. This is how merchants live: they underpay their employees, give (sell) their daughters in profitable marriages, and cheat customers. The only thing that unites them is that, paradoxical as it may sound, everyone speaks for himself and pursues personal gain in everything; This is their peculiar way of life. Despite all this darkness, in almost every play a “ray of light” (in Dobrolyubov’s words) bursts out from the depths, foreshadowing the imminent end of the kingdom of darkness, or the “villain” is defeated, vice is exposed and justice triumphs. Consider the drama "The Thunderstorm" and the comedy "The Forest". In both works, in the foreground there is a “dense” family, the house is controlled by a very willful woman (Kabanova - Gurmyzhskaya), whose oppression the girl living in her care (Katerina - Aksyusha) is forced to endure; at a certain moment a person appears on the scene who disrupts, although painful, but relatively calm life. The works develop different conflicts, and situations too (except for the above similarities), but the general idea that permeates their plots is the same. After analyzing both plays, all this can be noticed. In The Thunderstorm, Ostrovsky, using a small number of characters, managed to reveal several problems at once. Firstly, this is, of course, a social conflict, a clash between “fathers” and “children”, their points of view (and if we resort to generalization, then two historical eras). Kabanova and Dikoy belong to the older generation, who actively express their opinions, and Katerina, Tikhon, Varvara, Kudryash and Boris to the younger generation. Kabanova is sure that order in the house, control over everything that happens in it, is the key to a healthy life. The correct life, according to her concepts, is to follow the house-building orders and unquestioningly obey the elder (in this case, her, because she sees no other suitable candidate). Seeing that not all of her demands are being met, she fears for the future, both hers and her children’s, because her world is collapsing, and what should come to replace it seems chaos to her. She is trying with all her might to maintain the old order, because... He simply cannot live any other way; Therefore, the figure of Kabanova takes on a tragic connotation. In Diky, on the contrary, there is no hint of tragedy. He is confident that he is right and that everyone around him depends only on him, so he allows himself to do unimaginably vile acts, which is typical tyranny. The younger generation looks at things a little differently. All of them, with the exception of Boris, who for some unknown reason tolerates his uncle’s willfulness, to one degree or another express protest against oppression by their elders. Kudryash scolds Dikiy, thus not allowing himself to be offended. Varvara goes for walks at night, secretly from her mother, and then runs away with Kudryash. Boris, as already mentioned, endures Dikiy’s bullying and thereby shows some kind of inability to live independently. Such is Tikhon. His absolute dependence on his mother is due to the fact that he grew up in an environment where someone necessarily commands, and someone obeys. The most difficult and tragic fate is Katerina’s protest. Without clearly understanding what she needs, she knows one thing: she can’t live like that. Of course, she is part of the patriarchal Kalinov and lives by his laws, but at some point all this becomes unbearable for her. The “dark kingdom” gives a crack, and through it, from its very depths, a “light ray” breaks through. Katerina’s unclear desire to escape from this musty world somewhere (she is a maximalist, like Kabanova, only one option is possible for her: either everything or nothing) led her into the river, but thereby she resolved the conflict with her own destiny in her favor: Instead of the fate prepared for her to exist within four walls, always trampled upon by her mother-in-law and husband, she chose freedom, even at the cost of her life. In "The Forest", of course, there is no such tragic ending, and in this alone it differs from "The Thunderstorm". The above scheme (about a despotic housewife, a poor relative and a man whose appearance serves as an impetus for the development of the plot) is undoubtedly present; Aksyusha is forced to obey Gurmyzhskaya. But this line, like Aksyusha’s relationship with Peter, is a side story. The main thing is the return of Neschastlivtsev, a kind of “prodigal son,” to the bosom of the family. This brings to life the problem of the destruction of the true way of the family. Gurmyzhskaya “loves” her relative Neschastlivtsev only “out of obligation,” for appearances. In the same way, she “takes care” of Aksyusha’s well-being. There are a lot of simply vulgar types in comedy. For example, Milonov with his phrase “everything is high and everything is beautiful”; or the half-educated high school student Bulanov, who, according to Gurmyzhskaya, was born to command, and he was “forced to study something in the gymnasium”; the merchant-businessman Vosmibratov, who, without any embarrassment, deceived Gurmyzhskaya and returned the stolen money with the same ease; Schastlivtsev, who sees the goal of any person’s life in wealth. Gurmyzhskaya herself is also worthy of reproach: she is trying to convince everyone of her decency and absent virtue (for all that, happily pocketing the money intended for Neschastlivtsev, which he “nobly” rejected). Thus, despite the external difference between “Thunderstorm” and “Forest”, the idea contained in both works is the same. It accompanied Ostrovsky throughout his entire work, only the way of expressing it changed: either the author dressed it in satirical laughter, or exposed it openly, in all its “glory”... Only the essence did not change: darkness, vulgarity, corruption of the morals of the old world and the birth of something... something new, which is unknown where it leads, but will definitely destroy outdated orders - this is what Ostrovsky wanted to convey to the reader (or viewer) in his plays.
Ostrovsky is known in literature as the “discoverer” of such a class as the merchants. It was he who first identified this type as a serious literary object, proved that this hero is also interesting and deserves no less attention than his predecessors, primarily the nobles. In this regard, Ostrovsky belongs to the writers of the so-called “natural school”, which in the second half of the 1840s. included such authors as Gogol (with some reservations), early Dostoevsky, Nekrasov, Grigorovich.
Petty officials, station guards, organ grinders, inhabitants of the “bottom”, who became the heroes of their works, represent a remarkable phenomenon in Russian literature. Like his comrades, Ostrovsky portrayed such people in their usual environment, conducting their everyday conversations, paying attention to all sorts of little things, which, however, successfully complemented the overall portrait. The author's main achievement is probably that he managed to destroy the established image of a drunkard merchant who does not care about anything, and somewhat elevate him in the eyes of the reader. For example, the merchants Knurov and Vozhevatov ("Dowry", 1879), it seems, have a decent education, and therefore, probably, a fortune. At the beginning of the play, Knurov reads a newspaper, and not just any newspaper, but a French one. The shady traders from “Groza” never even dreamed of this. In general, educated merchants are rare in Ostrovsky, and ideal ones are completely absent. The same Knurov and Vozhevatov, using their wealth and power, gamble the fate of Larisa Ogudalova, deciding (without her knowledge) which of them will take her to the fair. In "The Thunderstorm" the reader encounters somewhat exaggerated portraits of merchants disfigured by the presence of power (Kabanov and Dikoy).
These are basically Ostrovsky's merchants. Their main problem is money. If there are not enough of them (relatively speaking, of course), then all the merchant’s worries are where and how to get them (these issues are usually resolved in favor of some kind of deception); if there is a lot of money, then, in principle, the goal does not change, which speaks of greed, and, in addition, there is also added concern about how to protect this wealth. This is how merchants live: they underpay their employees, give (sell) their daughters in profitable marriages, and cheat customers. The only thing that unites them is that, paradoxical as it may sound, everyone speaks for himself and pursues personal gain in everything; This is their peculiar way of life.
Despite all this darkness, in almost every play a “ray of light” (in Dobrolyubov’s words) bursts out from the depths, foreshadowing the imminent end of the kingdom of darkness, or the “villain” is defeated, vice is exposed and justice triumphs.
Consider the drama "The Thunderstorm" and the comedy "The Forest". In both works, in the foreground there is a “dense” family, the house is controlled by a very willful woman (Kabanova - Gurmyzhskaya), whose oppression the girl living in her care (Katerina - Aksyusha) is forced to endure; at a certain moment a person appears on the scene who disrupts, although painful, but relatively calm life. The works develop different conflicts, and situations too (except for the above similarities), but the general idea that permeates their plots is the same. After analyzing both plays, all this can be noticed.
In The Thunderstorm, Ostrovsky, using a small number of characters, managed to reveal several problems at once. Firstly, this is, of course, a social conflict, a clash between “fathers” and “children”, their points of view (and if we resort to generalization, then two historical eras). Kabanova and Dikoy belong to the older generation, who actively express their opinions, and Katerina, Tikhon, Varvara, Kudryash and Boris to the younger generation. Kabanova is sure that order in the house, control over everything that happens in it, is the key to a healthy life. The correct life, according to her concepts, is to follow the house-building orders and unquestioningly obey the elder (in this case, her, because she sees no other suitable candidate). Seeing that not all of her demands are being met, she fears for the future, both hers and her children’s, because her world is collapsing, and what should come to replace it seems chaos to her. She is trying with all her might to maintain the old order, because... He simply cannot live any other way; Therefore, the figure of Kabanova takes on a tragic connotation. In Diky, on the contrary, there is no hint of tragedy. He is confident that he is right and that everyone around him depends only on him, so he allows himself to do unimaginably vile acts, which is typical tyranny.
The younger generation looks at things a little differently. All of them, with the exception of Boris, who for some unknown reason tolerates his uncle’s willfulness, to one degree or another express protest against oppression by their elders. Kudryash scolds Dikiy, thus not allowing himself to be offended. Varvara goes for walks at night, secretly from her mother, and then runs away with Kudryash. Boris, as already mentioned, endures Dikiy’s bullying and thereby shows some kind of inability to live independently. Such is Tikhon. His absolute dependence on his mother is due to the fact that he grew up in an environment where someone necessarily commands, and someone obeys.
The most difficult and tragic fate is Katerina’s protest. Without clearly understanding what she needs, she knows one thing: she can’t live like that. Of course, she is part of the patriarchal Kalinov and lives by his laws, but at some point all this becomes unbearable for her. The “dark kingdom” gives a crack, and through it, from its very depths, a “light ray” breaks through. Katerina’s unclear desire to escape from this musty world somewhere (she is a maximalist, like Kabanova, only one option is possible for her: either everything or nothing) led her into the river, but thereby she resolved the conflict with her own destiny in her favor: Instead of the fate prepared for her to exist within four walls, always trampled upon by her mother-in-law and husband, she chose freedom, even at the cost of her life.
In "The Forest", of course, there is no such tragic ending, and in this alone it differs from "The Thunderstorm". The above scheme (about a despotic housewife, a poor relative and a man whose appearance serves as an impetus for the development of the plot) is undoubtedly present; Aksyusha is forced to obey Gurmyzhskaya. But this line, like Aksyusha’s relationship with Peter, is a side story. The main thing is the return of Neschastlivtsev, a kind of “prodigal son,” to the bosom of the family. This brings to life the problem of the destruction of the true way of the family. Gurmyzhskaya “loves” her relative Neschastlivtsev only “out of obligation,” for appearances. In the same way, she “takes care” of Aksyusha’s well-being. There are a lot of simply vulgar types in comedy. For example, Milonov with his phrase “everything is high and everything is beautiful”; or the half-educated high school student Bulanov, who, according to Gurmyzhskaya, was born to command, and he was “forced to study something in the gymnasium”; the merchant-businessman Vosmibratov, who, without any embarrassment, deceived Gurmyzhskaya and returned the stolen money with the same ease; Schastlivtsev, who sees the goal of any person’s life in wealth. Gurmyzhskaya herself is also worthy of reproach: she is trying to convince everyone of her decency and absent virtue (for all that, happily pocketing the money intended for Neschastlivtsev, which he “nobly” rejected).
Thus, despite the external difference between “Thunderstorm” and “Forest”, the idea contained in both works is the same. It accompanied Ostrovsky throughout his entire work, only the way of expressing it changed: either the author dressed it in satirical laughter, or exposed it openly, in all its “glory”... Only the essence did not change: darkness, vulgarity, corruption of the morals of the old world and the birth of something... something new, which is unknown where it leads, but will definitely destroy outdated orders - this is what Ostrovsky wanted to convey to the reader (or viewer) in his plays.
In 1870 Ostrovsky wrote "The Forest". A summary of this comedy and its analysis are presented in our article. The comedy consists of five acts. In 1871, Alexander Ostrovsky published his work in the journal Otechestvennye zapiski.
"Forest": summary
The action of the comedy takes place in the possessions of the wealthy landowner Gurmyzhskaya. The play "The Forest" (Ostrovsky), a summary of which we present to your attention, begins as follows. Mr. Bulanov is trying to win the girl Aksinya. After she leaves, his lackey invites him to start courting Gurmyzhskaya.
The landowner is with Milonov and Bodaev at this time. Raisa Pavlovna wants to marry Aksinya to Bulanov and find her only heir. The merchant Vosmibratov wants the girl to marry Peter, his son. He strives for this in order to acquire the forest. Vosmibratov does not contribute money for it. He is denied marriage.
Purchase of forest
Despite this, he still acquires the forest, and at a very profitable rate. He leaves with his son without leaving a receipt. Raisa Pavlovna forces Aksinya to play the role of Bulanov’s bride. Gurmyzhskaya is angry because the girl hates the “groom”. Peter and Aksinya are in love with each other. Secretly from everyone they see each other in the forest.
Meeting between Neschastlivtsev and Schastlivtsev
Neschastlivtsev and Schastlivtsev collide on their way. One of them comes from Kerch, and the other from Vologda. They tell each other that it won’t be possible to play in these cities, since there is no troupe. Without money, on foot, they continue on their way.
Gennady Demiyanovich Neschastlivtsev carries a broken pistol and several good dresses in his backpack. In his bundle, Schastlivtsev has a light coat, orders he stole somewhere and several books. They want to create a troupe, but finding a good actress is very difficult. After talking with each other and quarreling a little, Arkady and Gennady leave.
Raisa Pavlovna's dream
Landowner Raisa Pavlovna flirts with Bulanov. Ostrovsky's comedy "The Forest" continues with the story about Gurmyzhskaya's dream. Its summary is as follows. The landowner tells Bulanov that she had a dream about a missing relative - her nephew, who killed Bulanov. Soon the absurd conversation between them ends - the master arrives.
Gennady and Arkady visiting the landowner, Vosmibratov's exposure
Gennady Demiyanovich introduces himself to everyone as a retired officer. He says that Schastlivtsev is his lackey. Vosmibratov and Peter enter. Karp refuses to report their arrival. Bulanov, communicating with Gennady Demiyanovich, says that studying is not his business, since his thinking is amazing by nature. He himself wants to learn how to bluff in card games.
Arriving guests settle down in the gazebo. Taking the receipt, Vosmibratov lies to the landowner Raisa Pavlovna, and also hints to Gurmyzhskaya about refusing matchmaking. The landowner is unhappy. She decides to inform Bulanov about this. Vosmibratov and his son were caught. The merchant, after talking about deception, shouts loudly, making himself look formidable. Neschastlivtsev eventually takes the money and gives it to Raisa Pavlovna.
Hints from Gennady, exposure of the landowner
The landowner is pleased with the help provided to her. She promises that she will give Neschastlivtsev the same amount. He doesn't believe her. However, he shows an attraction to the landowner, making (very politely) almost direct hints. The unlucky ones vow to make an idol out of the woman and promise to pray for her.
Arkady is watching what is happening from behind a bush. He sees how the landowner mocks the actor, giving all her money to Bulanov. Arkady boasts to Neschastlivtsev at night that he turned out to be smart, since he was able to dine at the same table with the master and borrowed money from the housekeeper. He is afraid of Gennady, finishing his last sentence from behind the bushes.
Neschastlivtsev reveals who he really is
Gennady is sure that he will not be able to forgive the lady. Karp and Julitta arrive, followed by Schastlivtsev. Julitta (the housekeeper) appears due to an upcoming date. Karp jokes with her. He tells gossip about the lady and attributes various novels to her. Julitta is left alone with Arkady and tells him that she does not like her position.
Gennady continues to keep Schastlivtsev in fear. He inadvertently tells Ulita that he is not really an officer. Neschastlivtsev says that he and his imaginary lackey are actors. Aksinya and Peter are in the garden. The merchant Vosmibratov agrees to receive a smaller dowry than he was entitled to. The lovers ask Gennady for money, he easily wins over Aksinya and Peter. The girl is in despair, but Neschastlivtsev explains that his finances are even worse than hers. Then Aksinya says that she will drown herself in the lake. Gennady stops her.
Aksinya decides to become an actress
The comedy "The Forest" (Ostrovsky) continues with Neschastlivtsev inviting the girl to work as an actress in the troupe he is creating. She agrees. Gennady says that they will be able to become famous throughout Russia. Aksinya, Peter and Neschastlivtsev leave. Julitta and Raisa appear. Ulita tells Gurmyzhskaya the news, calls Bulanov and leaves.
Gurmyzhskaya flirts with Bulanov
The landowner flirts with Bulanov again. She asks him to guess what she likes. Gurmyzhskaya climbs up to him with a kiss, then, pushing Bulanov away, says that he is Raisa Pavlovna asking him to leave her estate. However, he does not leave. In the morning he offends Karp with his jokes. Karp says he will not tolerate disorder in the house. Bulanov is afraid of Neschastlivtsev, who mocks him. However, Gennady has no choice; he has to leave, saying that the landowner wished this. Leaving the house, he accidentally discovers a box of money.
Gennady receives a thousand rubles
The play "The Forest" (Ostrovsky) is already approaching its finale. Its plot is complex, but very interesting. Gurmyzhskaya starts a conversation with Aksinya about Bulanov. In the end she becomes jealous of her lover. Aksinya leaves, Gennady appears. By threatening, he persuades the landowner to give up the box. Gurmyzhskaya gives him 1000 rubles, but he says that he will shoot himself. Neschastlivtsev asks for a carriage, anticipating contracts that will be very beneficial for himself. Aksinya is looking for Peter to say goodbye and leave to play in the troupe. Vosmibratov agrees to receive a thousand rubles as a dowry. Aksinya begs the landowner to allocate this amount to them.
Final Events
Bulanov and Raisa decide to get married. On this occasion, Gennady tries to persuade the landowner to give a dowry, but she refuses. Bulanov supports her. Gennady himself gives the money to the lovers. The girl is grateful to him, and Bodaev is so surprised by the noble deed that he is going to report it in the newspaper.
Ostrovsky (“Forest”) concludes his work with a monologue. Its summary is as follows: it says that young girls want to leave home as soon as possible, and old women have a chance to marry young guys. Arkady tells Karp that if a carriage with horses arrives, he should turn it back so that the young people can have a pleasant walk.
Let's move on to the analysis of the play that Ostrovsky created ("The Forest"). Its summary certainly raised many questions among readers. This is understandable, because the work is one of the most complex in the work of Alexander Nikolaevich. Let's figure out what Ostrovsky wanted to tell us.
"Forest": analysis
The play "The Forest", written in 1870, ushered in a decade in which family novels were popular. Their main idea is the indissolubility of society and family. Ostrovsky, just like Saltykov-Shchedrin and Tolstoy, felt well that in Russia in the post-reform period everything had changed and was “just settling down” (Tolstoy). It is the family that reflects changes in society.
Ostrovsky wanted to show all this in his work (“Forest”). An analysis of the play makes it possible to verify that through the family conflict it reveals the great changes that have occurred in the life of Russian society. The wind of history is felt in the play. He displaced many people from the strong and rigid cells of the state, which was hierarchically organized. They all collide with each other, argue, fight in Gurmyzhskaya’s living room. These are people who were previously impossible to imagine in dialogical communication: a poor pupil, an illiterate merchant, a district nobility, a dropout high school student from a poor family of nobles, the landowner Gurmyzhsky (who became the actor Neschastlivtsev), an actor from the bourgeoisie.
The comedy "Forest" (Ostrovsky, as you know, created more than one work of this genre) is one of the most complex and perfect creations of Alexander Nikolaevich. This was expressed in the design of the work, in the complexity of the plot structure. The love story of Peter and Aksinya is developed in the form of folk comedy. It is reminiscent of the earlier This line is not brought to the fore in the work, although the dramatic struggle and development of the action are focused on it. Aksinya’s fate, one might say, is the reason for the development of another line - the struggle between the free artist Neschastlivtsev, the “prodigal son” of the Gurmyzhskys; and the world of the landowner's estate, the main ideologist of which is the landowner Gurmyzhskaya.
The high, heroic line is associated with the image of Gennady Neschastlivtsev. However, it is revealed in its entirety and in connection with the satirical orientation of the play. The analysis of "Forest" allows us to assert that family conflict provides a social characteristic (partly political) of society in the post-reform years. In a clash with his antagonists, Gennady is a truly high hero.
Why did Ostrovsky call the comedy "Forest"? This image is allegorical in nature. He is a symbol of the savage morals of the nobles, well-mannered outwardly, but corrupted internally. After all, the noble estate in which the action takes place is surrounded on all sides by forest.
Ostrovsky's play "The Forest", which we analyzed, is one of the most interesting works in the work of Alexander Nikolaevich. We hope you would like to get acquainted with the original of this comedy. Indeed, within the framework of this article it is impossible to convey the artistic features that Ostrovsky laid down in the play “The Forest”. A summary of the actions only describes the plot of the work.
Problems of Ostrovsky's plays "The Thunderstorm" and "Forest". Ostrovsky is known in literature as the “discoverer” of such a class as the merchants. It was he who first identified this type as a serious literary object and proved that this hero is also interesting and deserves no less attention than his predecessors, primarily the nobles. In this regard, Ostrovsky belongs to the writers of the so-called “natural school”, which in the second half of the 1840s. included such authors as Gogol (with some reservations), early Dostoevsky, Nekrasov, Grigorovich. Petty officials, station guards, organ grinders, inhabitants of the “bottom”, who became the heroes of their works, represent a remarkable phenomenon in Russian literature. Like his comrades, Ostrovsky portrayed such people in their usual environment, conducting their everyday conversations, paying attention to all sorts of little things, which, however, successfully complemented the overall portrait. The author's main achievement is probably that he managed to destroy the established image of a drunkard merchant who does not care about anything, and somewhat elevate him in the eyes of the reader. For example, the merchants Knurov and Vozhevatov (“Dowry,” 1879), it seems, have a decent education, and therefore, probably, a fortune. At the beginning of the play, Knurov reads a newspaper, and not just any newspaper, but a French one. The shady traders from “Groza” never even dreamed of this. In general, educated merchants are rare in Ostrovsky, and ideal ones are completely absent. The same Knurov and Vozhevatov, using their wealth and power, gamble the fate of Larisa Ogudalova, deciding (without her knowledge) which of them will take her to the fair. In “The Thunderstorm,” the reader encounters somewhat exaggerated portraits of merchants disfigured by the presence of power (Kabanov and Dikoy).
These are basically Ostrovsky's merchants. Their main problem is money. If there are not enough of them (relatively speaking, of course), then all the merchant’s worries are where and how to get them (these issues are usually resolved in favor of some kind of deception); if there is a lot of money, then, in principle, the goal does not change, which speaks of greed, and, in addition, there is also added concern about how to protect this wealth. This is how merchants live: they underpay their employees, give (sell) their daughters in profitable marriages, and cheat customers. The only thing that unites them is that, paradoxical as it may sound, everyone speaks for himself and pursues personal gain in everything; This is their peculiar way of life.
Despite all this darkness, in almost every play a “ray of light” (in Dobrolyubov’s words) bursts out from the depths, foreshadowing the imminent end of the kingdom of darkness, or the “villain” is defeated, vice is exposed and justice triumphs.
Consider the drama “The Thunderstorm” and the comedy “The Forest”. In both works, in the foreground there is a “dense” family, the house is controlled by a very willful woman (Kabanova - Gurmyzhskaya), whose oppression the girl living in her care (Katerina - Aksyusha) is forced to endure; at a certain moment a person appears on the scene who disrupts, although painful, but relatively calm life. The works develop different conflicts, and situations too (except for the above similarities), but the general idea that permeates their plots is the same. After analyzing both plays, all this can be noticed.
In The Thunderstorm, Ostrovsky, operating with a small number of characters, managed to reveal several problems at once. Firstly, this is, of course, a social conflict, a clash between “fathers” and “children”, their points of view (and if we resort to generalization, then two historical eras). Kabanova and Dikoy belong to the older generation, who actively express their opinions, and Katerina, Tikhon, Varvara, Kudryash and Boris to the younger generation. Kabanova is sure that order in the house, control over everything that happens in it, is the key to a healthy life. The correct life, according to her concepts, is to follow the house-building orders and unquestioningly obey the elder (in this case, her, because she sees no other suitable candidate). Seeing that not all of her demands are being met, she fears for the future, both hers and her children’s, because her world is collapsing, and what should come to replace it seems chaos to her. She is trying with all her might to maintain the old order, because... I simply cannot live any other way; Therefore, the figure of Kabanova takes on a tragic connotation. In Diky, on the contrary, there is no hint of tragedy. He is confident that he is right and that everyone around him depends only on him, so he allows himself to do unimaginably vile acts, which is typical tyranny.
The younger generation looks at things a little differently. All of them, with the exception of Boris, who for some unknown reason tolerates his uncle’s willfulness, to one degree or another express protest against oppression by their elders. Kudryash scolds Dikiy, thus not allowing himself to be offended. Varvara goes for walks at night, secretly from her mother, and then runs away with Kudryash. Boris, as already mentioned, endures Dikiy’s bullying and thereby shows some kind of inability to live independently. Such is Tikhon. His absolute dependence on his mother is due to the fact that he grew up in an environment where someone necessarily commands, and someone obeys.
The most difficult and tragic fate is Katerina’s protest. Without clearly understanding what she needs, she knows one thing: she can’t live like that. Of course, she is part of the patriarchal Kalinov and lives by his laws, but at some point all this becomes unbearable for her. The “dark kingdom” gives a crack, and through it, from its very depths, a “light ray” breaks through. Katerina’s unclear desire to escape from this musty world somewhere (she is a maximalist, like Kabanova, only one option is possible for her: either everything or nothing) led her into the river, but thereby she resolved the conflict with her own destiny in her favor: Instead of the fate prepared for her to exist within four walls, always trampled upon by her mother-in-law and husband, she chose freedom, even at the cost of her life.
In "The Forest", of course, there is no such tragic ending, and in this alone it differs from "The Thunderstorm". The above scheme (about a despotic housewife, a poor relative and a man whose appearance serves as an impetus for the development of the plot) is undoubtedly present; Aksyusha is forced to obey Gurmyzhskaya. But this line, like Aksyusha’s relationship with Peter, is a side line. The main thing is the return of Neschastlivtsev, a kind of “prodigal son,” to the bosom of the family. This brings to life the problem of the destruction of the true way of the family. Gurmyzhskaya “loves” her relative Neschastlivtsev only “out of obligation,” for appearances. In the same way, she “takes care” of Aksyusha’s well-being. There are a lot of simply vulgar types in comedy. For example, Milonov with his phrase “everything is high and everything is beautiful”; or the half-educated high school student Bulanov, who, according to Gurmyzhskaya, was born to command, and he was “forced to learn something in the gymnasium”; the merchant-businessman Vosmibratov, who, without any embarrassment, deceived Gurmyzhskaya and returned the stolen money with the same ease; Schastlivtsev, who sees the goal of any person’s life in wealth. Gurmyzhskaya herself is also worthy of reproach: she tries to convince everyone of her decency and absent virtue (for all this, happily pocketing the money intended for Nesvestvtsev, which he “nobly” rejected).
Thus, despite the external difference between “Thunderstorm” and “Forest”, the idea contained in both works is the same. It accompanied Ostrovsky throughout his entire work, only the way of expressing it changed: either the author dressed it in satirical laughter, or exposed it openly, in all its “glory”... Only the essence did not change: darkness, vulgarity, corruption of the morals of the old world and the birth of something... something new, which leads to something unknown, but will definitely destroy outdated orders - this is what Ostrovsky wanted to convey to the reader (or viewer) in his plays.
(the essay is divided into pages)
The comedy “The Forest” by A. N. Ostrovsky, written in 1870, in post-reform times for Russia, reflected all the processes taking place in society, however, affecting them,
Ostrovsky focused his attention most of all on the moral aspect of changes in public life. The playwright showed that the old morality is dying out, and the individual, freed from the shackles of society, does not know how to behave. Opening a decade of family novels, the play examines the problems of choosing moral life behavior by heroes - members of the same family.
At the center of the play is the landowner of the Penki estate, Raisa Pavlovna Gurmyzhskaya, famous throughout the entire district for the “severity of her life.” Like Kabanikha from the play “The Thunderstorm,” the most important thing for Gurmyzhskaya is compliance with external forms of decency, because to those around her she seems like a “pious woman,” modest, noble.
The owner of the “Penki” estate, in her words, ready to help with everything, “only a clerk of her money” that belongs to the poor, mindlessly sells off the forest, the huge estates of Gurmyzhskaya are melting, they are being bought up by “yesterday’s man,” the merchant Vosmibratov. At the same time, the merchant shamelessly deceives the landowner, receiving from her a receipt for the money before he gives it to her. If it weren’t for Gurmyzhskaya’s nephew Neschatlivtsev, who with all the fervor of his youth attacked the merchant who dared to deceive her, the prudent Vosmibratov would have managed to “twist” the mismanagement of the landowner. It is no coincidence that the landowner herself sells the forest: Ostrovsky shows that the noble way of life is being destroyed from the inside.
Greedy to the extreme, Gurmyzhskaya skimps on helping her “poor relatives.” She regrets money for the dowry of her niece Aksyusha, she also regrets money for the education of her nephew. At the same time, Raisa Pavlovna assures those around her that she deliberately does not help Gurmyzhsky, because “in excess of education” there is “corruption of morals.”
However, from Karp’s conversation with Ulita, it becomes clear to whom Gurmyzhskaya’s money is “flying in the thousands”: Karp talks about how the lady squanders her money with her lovers. Initially, settling a dropout high school student, the son of a friend, Bulanov, in her home, she strives to do a “good deed” and marry him to her niece, but then she decides to marry the “poor boy” herself, leaving the girl without any help. Trying to hide her connection with Bulanov, she assures those around her that he is her niece’s fiancé, and therefore even refuses the wooing Peter Vosmibratov.
The playwright shows that such vicious behavior is so pernicious that it can “infect” the people around him. Thus, Gurmyzhskaya has an ominous reflection in her maid Ulita, and Gurmyzhskaya’s relationship with Bulanov is, as it were, projected onto Ulita’s relationship with Schastlivtsev, to whom she secretly brings a bottle of “milk from a mad cow” and with whom she shares her misfortunes. “You are crawling, crawling in front of the lady, that is, worse, it seems, than any last creature...,” she says to Neschastlivtsev’s comrade. “And how this fortress disfigures people.”
A vicious immoral circle is created, and not only Gurmyzhskaya’s servants are subject to its influence, but also the neighbors, who are also infected with this “ugliness.”
Bodaev and Milonov are provincial landowners, whose ideal is in the serfdom past. Being a retired cavalryman, Uar Kirilych Bodayev is somewhat reminiscent of Skalozub Griboyedov: he is the same rude, straightforward person, and therefore in his remarks to Gurmyzhskaya and Bulanov (“he’s lying, lying, he’ll squander everything,” “...let him serve, we’re unscrupulous”) more frank than Milonov.
The beautiful Evgeniy Apollonovich Milonov, who is “exquisitely dressed, in a family tie,” makes sweet speeches about virtue and yearns for the bygone times of serfdom. He is characterized by rare verbiage; he speaks of the marriage of Gurmyzhskaya and Bulanov as a “union” of “unshakable virtue, worldly wisdom, strengthened by experience...” with “the tender young passion of a noble nursery.”