NT Young Chekhov

[Nicholas]

Jul 30, 2016 21:24:06 GMT David J said:

I thought maybe it's because the first two I saw, the Anya Reiss version and that Regents Park one with the overhead mirror and Hans Zimmer-esque music blasting out every now and then, just detracted from the play. Having seen this version at Chichester, the most naturalistic of the three, I've come to the conclusion that this is a play about people with problems that is just not for me.

I loved the Regent’s Park Seagull. It captured the preening, posturing pretention of the protagonists perfectly – can Janie Dee play a flibbertigibbet or what? – whilst the open air theatre naturally drew constant comparisons to Konstantin’s ‘new kind of’ outside theatre from act one, a comparison which Dunster and Betts ran with, making their Seagull a subtly subversive version and positioning Chekhov’s theatrical progressiveness alongside Konstantin’s (and Betts’ rewrite of Konstantin’s play pulled no punches in mocking his pretention, so already this interpretation was laced with irony). That mirror was an excellent example of a very simple piece of scenery very effectively making a very big difference throughout (the best example would obviously be Ivo van Hove’s simple illuminated box, his Miller Corner); here it allowed the drama to chug on naturalistically on the ground, but then gave proceedings the cinematic airy-fairy airs of Sophia Coppola, or the photographic beauty of even something rather fantastical like the Cottingley Fairies, as well as its own unique floaty quality, drawing out organic beauty in ordinary conversations, all whilst enhancing the point about new theatre, old theatre, pretentious theatre and all that. The little other modernities – the Hans Zimmer blasts, the pre-recorded voiceover – just added to this traditional/modern, real/theatrical, naturalistic/beautified, Trigorin/Konstantin dichotomy. And I thought Betts’ version was very witty, very successfully updated and, occasionally, very new (notably that new last line). I thought it tremendous stuff. And, crucially, actually funny. Loved it.

Anywho, now that absolutely necessary blast from the past is over, watch as I pretend to know what I’m talking about when talking about Russian theatre in a thread where we have an actual Russian correspondent... Incidentally, RUmbledoll, I'm loving all the insights into how Russians do Chekhov/Microsoft and am trying to hold off from getting overly nerdy/nosey asking a hundred questions about Chekhov and theatre in Russia (one quickly – is he taught in school in Russia like Shakespeare is here?), but the one question I really HAVE to ask now is, from your avatar (presumably not you, although if it is...), is Bob Dylan actually big in Russia?

I’d absolutely agree, before I ramble on, that Chekhov is the second greatest playwright after Anya Reiss Shakespeare. To quote Tolstoy to Chekhov, “I can’t stand Shakespeare, but your plays are worse than his”. In fact, personally, I might prefer Anton to Bill.

I saw these in Chichester and liked them well enough. Four stars, I’d say, for the whole day’s energy; relatively, though, I’d say four for Platonov, four for Ivanov, and three for The Seagull, which unsatisfactorily wraps up an otherwise much better if not unproblematic day. As individual versions, the first two have much merit and I’d recommend both individually as good theatre. As a whole day, you can’t help but be swept up with the energy, though how you like eleven hours of Chekhov is wholly dependent on how much you like one hour of Chekhov, so the marathon won’t be for everyone (e.g. I couldn’t stand In The Vale of Health, merely because I can only stomach so much Simon Gray in one day, and four solid solo plays – enjoyable in isolation – became an endurance test consecutively, eleven hours of anyone can be tiresome to some). As an intellectual exercise, I think they make a strong claim that Chekhov the writer was as talented at 18 as he was at 44 (this book does too); I don’t think, however, they make any claim that Chekhov the theatremaker was as talented at 18 as he was at 44 – a more interesting claim – and the fault there lies not with imperfect Chekhov but with overcareful Hare and Kent.

Starting at the end, The Seagull was the worst by a long way, because it suffered what I felt The Master Builder suffered from – translation-itis. There was a line in Hare’s Master Builder which went something like “And what else is there about me that you find attractive?”. There were others like it too, that one sticks in the memory more. It was a line that jarred, one of those awful moments where you’re aware you’re hearing a translation, as the stuffy vocabulary and iffy sentence structure sounds a little too babelfish.com-y – a little too word-by-word literal-translated. His Seagull suffered so too. Too many lines weren’t well suited to dialogue. Amidst other lines I can’t remember now, the bloody frigging bloody frigging swears in The Seagull just did not work, they sounded like Sir David Hare’s uncomfortable concession to modernity, like Sir David Hare trying to rap or play Pokemon Go and keep up with the youthful Bettses and Donneleys and even Reisses, the other modern Seagull updaters whose swearing was successful. Beyond that there was a certain discomfort to it, a certain tension between Sir David Hare the academic translator and Sir David Hare trying to emulate a young satirist, which led to uncomfortably over-verbose language mixed with weird swearing and inconsistent modernities. Anna Chancellor would make a wonderful Arkadina in a better script. My criticisms of Ivanov and PLatonov are slightly personal, slightly fatuous and slightly redundant as I’d recommend both of those shows for much I admire in them. My criticisms of The Seagull are because it’s not a very good version of The Seagull, well acted though it may be. And, crucially, not funny. Three stars, one for Chancellor, one for James and one for Vinall, none for Hare.

Ivanov was good, and writing it up now makes me realise just how good it was. Kent made the first few scenes unbearably overcast with the dark clouds of depression, making us unable to see Ivanov’s townspeople as anything but unwanted interlopers, making the flippancy of their dialogue seem positively immoral next to the grief of the world – due to depression, boring dialogue becomes positively Hitchcockian in how it’s hiding true emotional distress, and for that Kent deserves much applause. The card-playing scene was horrible and lonely for this reason. As a tonal evocation of depression I was amazed by the full-on first two acts. It lost some steam after that, and by being so focused on Ivanov’s own overcast outlook we lost the chance to really get into the heads of Chekhov’s comprehensive and well-constructed supporting cast: this sidelined Nina Sosanya in a way Grandage/Stoppard never sidelined McKee (her again, always wonderful), but the biggest tragedy was Dr Lvov, who baby Tom Hiddleston played with slimy duplicity and self-righteousness, where here James Mcardle lacked the chance to show the second of Lvov’s two faces due to Kent’s Ivanov-centric direction. Not much point saying Sam West was very good as it’s now Geoffrey Streatfield (an actor who is always very good), but Sam West was, indeed, very good.

Platonov was a blistering performance by James Mcardle and a superb supporting cast (esp. Olivia Vinall and the always wonderfully sympathetic Nina Sosanya), marred by MOR direction. Now, the worst thing you can do when talking about a play is merely compare it to previous productions and not judge it on its own merits, but sod it. Three years ago a stunning piece of punk theatre was made from Chekhov’s first play (apparently Platonov was played by Jack Laskey, who I’ve since effused about in Lawrence After Arabia, there he had a real sad bravado, turns out I’m a big Laskey fan): Helena Kaut-Howson’s Sons Without Fathers brought the energy and vitality of a rock concert to the tale of a washed up rock star that PLatonov is (well, that is if you think doctors are rock stars, and given Chekhov wrote this as a teenage medical student, I’m willing to psychoanalyse and say that’s what he thought of junior doctors (and frankly, junior doctors are rock stars)). That show and Laskey’s performance had the bravado and energy and spunk of a showy-offy young man which suited the flawed script wonderfully, what with the script’s flaws being too much of a young man showing off. Here Hare handles it like a bus-pass-holding knight-of-the-realm wearing the white gloves of a historian. So I suppose not enough of Sir David Hare’s spunk. Perhaps I’ll forgive it that. His script, though, had a politeness and a formality that doesn’t do justice to the debauchery Chekhov indulges in, making a ‘well made play’ of a script that’s anything but. Kent, though, makes a museum piece of it too by behaving carefully and treating it with the over-reverence which hampered Lindsay Posner’s Vanya – it was slow, well-staged, politely ordered and sleek, and by staking such a claim for its worth as a piece of literature they rather forget its energy as a piece of theatre (Michael Frayn does both, incidentally, so Hampstead’s Wild Honey is probably a hot ticket if casting is good (bring back Laskey)). This show IS a wonderful well-made play, admittedly, but I think there's an edge to the manuscript which warrants a risk Hare wasn't willing to take. There was a real politeness to both the character of Platonov and the feel of Kent’s Platonov which meant I never felt the narrative’s excitement or sexiness, nor believed the narrative’s contrivances, wonderful though Mcardle and the women were.

And just this May, Dead Centre brought Chekhov’s First Play to Bristol, which uses the unfinished manuscript as a springboard to make damning, vital and biting observations (in only about 70 minutes, no less) about what we bring to the theatre and what theatre gives back to us, and much else besides. It was one of this year’s best pieces of theatre. Shame you can’t see it. Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah (though in all sincerity, did anyone see Chekhov’s First Play in Bristol, Ireland or internationally, and if so do you share my immense admiration for it?).

I’ve been agnostic about Olivia Vinall in the past, but she comes out of this trilogy a conquering hero. Her three performances are three separate triumphs, and to see her evoke three separate types of hurt and loneliness one day is really something.

There’s an awful lot to admire in the trilogy, not least the actors who tick off all three, and the very convincing literary claim that Chekhov’s early plays are early masterpieces. Perhaps I was a bit put off by rather bad seats in Chichester, or a bad memory since last November, or a bad The Seagull wrapping up an otherwise very good day. I’d absolutely recommend these. I just wish that the eleven hour extravaganza had the bravado of an arrogant young student, or the reckless ambition of a playwright thinking he was finished. According to the programme and press material, one reason for these revivals was to prove that young Chekhov’s writing deserves the same literary attention, appreciation and criticism as the Chekhov of those final three masterpieces. As someone who studied Chekhov, my answer is “Well, duh”. As a theatregoer, I think Kent and Hare absolutely make that literary claim, but I think that in doing so they fail to make that theatrical claim, sacrificing some theatrical daring and, more damningly, some theatrical vivacity for the sake of well-made well-done well-intentioned intellectual points. Platonov is an eight hour risk, Ivanov is a haunting depiction of depression, and The Seagull is a theatrical cry to rally forwards; here Platonov was a very good but very safe well-made-play, Ivanov was a very good haunting depiction of depression, and The Seagull was a bit of a botch job. What makes all Chekhov genius is his lifelong subtle innovation and his huge humanistic heart; what makes Young Chekhov exciting is that those elements were filtered through his early satiric eye and a lack of inhibitions from the follies of youth.  Sadly Hare and Kent turn Young Chekhov into 156-Year-Old Chekhov, Platonov now the contemporary of The Moderate Soprano. As such, whilst it’s an entertaining, moving eleven hours of theatre (or eight hours, followed by The Seagull), it doesn’t zing with the passion or the identity that something as theatrically intense, individual and focused as, say, Icke’s Vanya, or Herrin’s Vanya, or Mitchell’s Cherry Orchard, or those other aforementioned Chekhov triumphs. Those were theatrical. This was intellectual. There’s the rub. Much to admire, much to move, much to like, but oh how I wish it had risk, provocation, impoliteness, youth. That would have pushed this from “Very Good But Not Unproblematic” to “Essential Intellectually, Essential Emotionally”. That might be less true to Old Hare, but that would be much much truer to Young Chekhov.

Still, four stars! Four over-polite and over-intellectual stars, but four well-acted well-deserved stars nonetheless! Bugbears are more to write than praise. I’m an arse sometimes. Well done to all concerned.

Quick intellectual addendum: if this really wanted to get to grips with Young Chekhov, it would feature The Wood Demon, his third play and great anomaly. I always wish that someone would eventually try and find the merit in it: the only Chekhov I’m yet to see and the only bad play Chekhov wrote, and it’s BAAAAAAAAAD... It’s the slapstick Uncle Vanya down to Vanya’s slapstick suicide, complete with act three’s property talk intact – and as well as having too many characters, being too morally black and white and obvious, making Vanya a figure of fun and then actually having Vanya shoot himself only for everyone to move on immediately (spoiler), the jokes just aren’t funny. I say all this believing it to be terrible literature, but possibly an edit, or an ironic touch, or a sensitive touch may find the good in it. Had Hare and Kent tried this, they may have made it funny or humanistic or half-decent, and THAT would prove something theatrical and new about Young Chekhov. Regardless, I know Trevor Nunn once wanted to do it, and whilst he’s a variable director I’d love to know what he finds exciting in it. Given her teenage bastardisations of the great man’s great work, for once I think Anya Reiss would do a good job with this lesser effort. I think I say this every time I see any Chekhov. In fact, has anyone seen any production of The Wood Demon, and is it as bad as I fear?

P.S. Former Ivanov Sam West recently narrated a wonderful podcast called Borders: An Odyssey, which is possibly the best piece of new literature I’ve encountered all year: a sprawling Sebaldian epic retelling of refuge which is sweet in its classicism, comprehensive in its scope and vital in its political modernity – do hunt it down, brilliant stuff. Also West was just behind me at The Flick and has a lovely belly laugh, clearly enjoyed that.

P.P.S. Incidentally, I like Joshua James a lot – here his Konstantin was a sensitive soul, Here We Go was a mini-masterpiece, his Ferdinand in The Tempest was very touching, and in particular Fathers and Sons with Seth Numrich was a tour-de-force double act between those two rising stars pushing each other on to greater levels of greatness (once again, Friel’s a genius) – but he was in the audience of Kings of War at the Barbican and didn’t say thank you when I held the loo door open for him so now he’s dead to me. Hot showbiz gossip, that.

[rumbledoll]

Nicholas, oh I did miss you terribly! Enjoyed your review v much. It's a pity you haven't seen it at NT as well 'cause it would give us a unique insight and you - a chance to compare (I confirm that Mr Streatfeild is doing more than fine but since I have a big crush on him after The Beaux' Stratagem last year you can't consider my opinion an objective one and I won't go any further..

Now to the questions. I do not actually know how excessively Shakespeare is studied in English schools, but I would imagine we have much less of Chekhov - just a couple of major plays alongside Ostrovsky and Gorky.
And no, Bob Dylan is hardly known in Russia 'cause nobody understands what he's singing about lol )) But I love his early work to bits and consider him the greatest songwriter ever.
You can ask away anything you like - will try to answer to the best of my knowledge (though I'm not as hardcore theatre-goer in Russia as I am in UK).

[rumbledoll]

Actually I've just checked a regular school curricula in Literature and it shows only "Cherry Orchard" as a part of common core, which is a shocker! I remember reading at least two more - (Three Sisters and The Seagull) during school years but they must be elective these days.

[Jan]

Ongoing debate here about whether Chekhov or Ibsen is the second greatest playwright after Shakespeare but I'm sure another playwright would point out to you that he himself is second only to Shakespeare in the number of plays at the NT he has had staged, I think it may approach 20.

[Deleted]

Ben Power?

[mallardo]

Saw Platonov last night; loved the physical production and the cast, the play itself not so much. Although it's fascinating to see the genesis of so many Chekhovian themes and motifs - the impending loss of the estate, the allure of Paris, the conflict between money and class, the stifling ennui, the fact that no one seems to actually do anything - the wild veering between farce and melodrama leaves the piece lost in a dramatic no man's land. The second half especially, the schoolroom scene, where Platonov plays his endless self-pitying soliloquies directly to the audience (is that Chekhov or David Hare or Jonathan Kent?) like a pantomime clown, drags the show down to rock bottom.

James McArdle, for all his efforts, couldn't make sense of Platonov nor could he demonstrate the charm and appeal that drives all of these otherwise intelligent women mad. It's one of those plays where what's being said about a character seems to have no connection with the character actually before us on stage. I look forward to The Seagull.

[peggs]

Saw the trilogy on saturday and had a great 'event theatre' day, going home the lack of people just sitting around talking and drinking and not doing a lot but eating pickles felt very wrong.

Don't have a lot to add that hasn't already been said, loved Platonov, a new play for me so I have no comparisons which perhaps stood it in good stead but it was utterly unexpected, started off with me thinking 'ahh more russians doing a lot of talking about money but not actually doing anything' and in truth I guess that continued but there was such a lot of energy or woman throwing themselves at Platonov (Mallardo, I have to disagree, I found in James McArdle's interpretation a lot that made perfect sense of the effect he had on women) and it was so funny. The set was just beautiful, all that water and lanterns and fireworks and the train lights, i'm always a sucker for a bit of an interesting sets so this ticked all my boxes.

Ivanov wasn't as good in my view as the Branagh version of some years back which was the first time I thought maybe i didn't dislike Chekhov as much as i thought i did, but it still all held together. I appear too tired or perhaps just not bright enough to fully understand Nicholas' review above as to why the direction made it more Ivanov focused but I did want to see more of Nina Sosanya and I remembered Lvov working better in the Branagh version. Whilst there were times when you just want to shake Ivanov especially in the treatment of his wife I always viewed the character through the lenses of pity, from the opening scene Steatfeild playing him very much as a man staring at this seeming chasm of endless darkness.

The Seagull ended so strongly that I mentally awarded it another star, when Olivia Vinall came back on it was almost as if it was a different actress such was the change, it was achingly painful to watch and continued to cement my view of how much I like her on stage. Anna Chancellor very good as you'd expect.

I saw these all with a fellow board member so it was a lovely day all round with plenty to talk about in the intervals and after some rather so so theatre across the summer left me feeling very good about theatre again.

[mallardo]

Sept 4, 2016 19:23:36 GMT peggs said:

Saw the trilogy on saturday and had a great 'event theatre' day, going home the lack of people just sitting around talking and drinking and not doing a lot but eating pickles felt very wrong.

Don't have a lot to add that hasn't already been said, loved Platonov, a new play for me so I have no comparisons which perhaps stood it in good stead but it was utterly unexpected, started off with me thinking 'ahh more russians doing a lot of talking about money but not actually doing anything' and in truth I guess that continued but there was such a lot of energy or woman throwing themselves at Platonov (Mallardo, I have to disagree, I found in James McArdle's interpretation a lot that made perfect sense of the effect he had on women) and it was so funny.

Peggs, I am suitably chastened.  I really should stop trying to figure out what qualities in a man appeal to a woman.  I've never been able to do it in life so what makes me think I can do it when critiquing a play?

[Deleted]

If a man is handsome and charismatic, then he can find it very easy to attract women even if those are literally the only things he has going for him, which is very much how it is in Platonov's case.

[vdcni]

Also saw it on Saturday and would basically agree - really enjoyed Platanov and like you Peggs I could easily see the charisma in James McArdle's performance. In fact half my problem with Ivanov and The Seagull was that I thought Geoffrey Streatfield was the weak link in both and I couldn't make sense of why women were throwing themselves at him which surprised me as I usually like him in everything but not here.

That said I still liked Ivanov and in some ways enjoyed it more than the Donmar version despite Streatfield and McArdle who didn't impress as Lvov; thanks to Coy, Egan, Sosanya & the rest of the support who were always amusing if nothing else. And actually I remember finding McKee anaemic and a disappointment in the Branagh version and much preferred Sosanya who I felt was one of the few members of the cast who put in a very strong performance in more than one play alongside Egan and to be fair Vinall even if I didn't actually like any of her characters.

I'm not sure having all three in one day really worked - unlike some other times it's been done recently, Henry VI for example at the Globe, as it really did show how much Checkov returned to the same themes - by The Seagull we were on the watch as to who was the Doctor, school teacher, victim etc and I was slightly tired of it so I'm not sure how much that influenced my dislike of The Seagull despite a strong performance from Anna Chancellor. The extended scene between Steatfeild and Vinall did nothing for me. Count me as another who felt the translation didn't help in places.

Oh well - worth the trip though despite the issues.

[Nicholas]

Sept 2, 2016 12:50:48 GMT rumbledoll said:

Nicholas, oh I did miss you terribly! Enjoyed your review v much. It's a pity you haven't seen it at NT as well 'cause it would give us a unique insight and you - a chance to compare (I confirm that Mr Streatfeild is doing more than fine but since I have a big crush on him after The Beaux' Stratagem last year you can't consider my opinion an objective one and I won't go any further..

Now to the questions. I do not actually know how excessively Shakespeare is studied in English schools, but I would imagine we have much less of Chekhov - just a couple of major plays alongside Ostrovsky and Gorky.
And no, Bob Dylan is hardly known in Russia 'cause nobody understands what he's singing about lol )) But I love his early work to bits and consider him the greatest songwriter ever.
You can ask away anything you like - will try to answer to the best of my knowledge (though I'm not as hardcore theatre-goer in Russia as I am in UK).

Спасибо! I’ve messaged you a load of questions so not to interrupt here – don’t feel you have to answer them all, but thanks!

I’d be tempted to go back to Ivanov – it was the best part of the trilogy, and I do love Streatfield too – but doubt I’ll have the time, because life... But The Beaux Stratagem was rather lovely, and that was pretty much all down to him! I went because of Samuel Barnett and Susannah Fielding, both great as always, but they had all that boring ‘getting divorced’ malarkey and all that was a bit of a downer, compared to Geoffrey Streatfield who literally danced away with the whole show! Wasn’t he wonderful in that? Can’t think of it and not smile. A trifle, oh a triiiiiiifle...

And I love that you say Russians don’t understand Dylan’s voice – Dylan fans at Dylan concerts don’t understand Dylan’s voice! I mean, listen to this or this and blimey it’s barely the same song it was fifty years ago! But that’s just part of the man’s genius, isn’t it?

Sept 4, 2016 19:23:36 GMT peggs said:

Ivanov wasn't as good in my view as the Branagh version of some years back which was the first time I thought maybe i didn't dislike Chekhov as much as i thought i did, but it still all held together. I appear too tired or perhaps just not bright enough to fully understand Nicholas' review above as to why the direction made it more Ivanov focused but I did want to see more of Nina Sosanya and I remembered Lvov working better in the Branagh version. Whilst there were times when you just want to shake Ivanov especially in the treatment of his wife I always viewed the character through the lenses of pity, from the opening scene Steatfeild playing him very much as a man staring at this seeming chasm of endless darkness.

A) By using weird phrases and writing long spiels, I hopefully sound relatively smart and informed, whereas truth be told I haven’t a clue what I’m going on about most of the time. I say it’s a directorial choice – I’ve no idea how direction really works, I’ve just got to blame somebody and Kent will do.

B) Ivanov’s depressed, making him a misanthrope. In the Grandage version, his misery was one part of a bigger world. In this version, his misery was ALL the world. As you say, he was staring into this chasm of darkness, and it seemed the stage itself was that chasm: in how grotesquely the supporting characters were played (cattily gossiping whilst playing cards and ignoring Ivanov’s pain, making fun of genuine misery – it was like a Hogarth painting), the show shared his misanthropic view of other people. So I suppose I mean less Ivanov focused, and more through Ivanov’s eyes. In its way that was great, a truly immersive look at depression, but I think it gave Sosanya and Mcardle less to dig their teeth into than Mckee and Hiddleston had. I did like how dark and misanthropic this felt, but I preferred the more observational and even-handed Branagh version.

But I would say that – you say that for you Ivanov was what first made you not hate Chekhov, for me Ivanov was what first wowed me about theatre in the first place! 2008! Eight years, time flies...

[rumbledoll]

Just for a bit of fun - Chekhov challenge with NT cast (you have to guess which play the phrase comes from)

Round 1 (James McArdle vs Nina Sosanya)

Round 2 (Olivia Vinall vs Joshua James)

The Final

'Seagull trophy' cracked me up )))

[rumbledoll]

Sept 8, 2016 1:47:43 GMT Nicholas said:

Sept 2, 2016 12:50:48 GMT rumbledoll said:

Nicholas, oh I did miss you terribly! Enjoyed your review v much. It's a pity you haven't seen it at NT as well 'cause it would give us a unique insight and you - a chance to compare (I confirm that Mr Streatfeild is doing more than fine but since I have a big crush on him after The Beaux' Stratagem last year you can't consider my opinion an objective one and I won't go any further..

Now to the questions. I do not actually know how excessively Shakespeare is studied in English schools, but I would imagine we have much less of Chekhov - just a couple of major plays alongside Ostrovsky and Gorky.
And no, Bob Dylan is hardly known in Russia 'cause nobody understands what he's singing about lol )) But I love his early work to bits and consider him the greatest songwriter ever.
You can ask away anything you like - will try to answer to the best of my knowledge (though I'm not as hardcore theatre-goer in Russia as I am in UK).

Спасибо! I’ve messaged you a load of questions so not to interrupt here – don’t feel you have to answer them all, but thanks!

I’d be tempted to go back to Ivanov – it was the best part of the trilogy, and I do love Streatfield too – but doubt I’ll have the time, because life... But The Beaux Stratagem was rather lovely, and that was pretty much all down to him! I went because of Samuel Barnett and Susannah Fielding, both great as always, but they had all that boring ‘getting divorced’ malarkey and all that was a bit of a downer, compared to Geoffrey Streatfield who literally danced away with the whole show! Wasn’t he wonderful in that? Can’t think of it and not smile. A trifle, oh a triiiiiiifle...

And I love that you say Russians don’t understand Dylan’s voice – Dylan fans at Dylan concerts don’t understand Dylan’s voice! I mean, listen to this or this and blimey it’s barely the same song it was fifty years ago! But that’s just part of the man’s genius, isn’t it?

Sept 4, 2016 19:23:36 GMT peggs said:

I'll do my best to answer them all! It's a pleasure to help, honestly 

Oh, The Trifle (I wish NT had OST for this)! Here in Russia they sometimes still show the encores of Beaux' and I go whenever I feel like it just to soak up this energy again and have a good laugh! This production was the first thing I ever saw Geoffrey in and he absolutely stole every bit of my attention (originally intended to Sam Barnett) and made me fell in love on the spot! Back then it struck me how physical his delivery was (not only the dancing bits, but overall movements, gestures, pace) and his parts in Chekhov only convince me that it's his usual approach.

As I mentioned earlier Ivanov was probably my favourite of them all, mostly due to Geoffrey's performance. I didn't see Saw West in this so gotta ask - how much did he rely on the physicality in this? 'Cause it seems Mr. StreatFEILD (let's try to right his family name correctly, shall we? ) relly went for it. Every piece of furniture is a crutch to lean on.. he clutches to the armrest of a chair as if his very sanity depends on it, up to the point his fingers turn white and numb.. The twitches he desperately tries to control, he stops speaking halfway through the line, too tired to continue or with a little hope he might be understood. He shudders with every touch as if it drags him out of the hay, he cringes when he enters the room as if to make himself smaller or wish he didn’t exist at all. He covers his head a lot as if trying to make voices inside fade away. The moments when he's fully alive are only brief awakenings – either when he wants to believe in Sasha’s unconditional eagerness to heal his wounds even though he realizes how foolish that is or when his anger takes over to erupt and burn everything in sight (when he broke that chair for the second I thought I just want to dash away as far as possible. His fury was pouring over the front rows like waves of hot lava). There’s also a high contrast with his self-observations, his Hamlet-like monologues on a cold lonely stage (never ceases to amaze me how intimate can Olivier get) when he looks audience members in the eye a lot, but not in a search of reassurance or sympathy - is there anything on earth to fill this emptiness? There’s something beyond any pain or anguish (which only mean you are still able to FEEL). There’s NOTH-ING-NESS. And if you are brave enough look back – these eyes are barren, two dark holes with every last bit of life sucked out of them. It was genuinely terrifying. I might have stared with my jaw dropped for the rest of the scene.

Going back to physicality - by the end of the play Ivanov is a shell of a man – each step is heavy as if the invisible burden pressing him down to the ground, his shoulders dropped with eternal fatigue. He’s doomed and as much as it hurts to watch him walk slowly to that disastrous finale there’s nothing you can do. And it’s this helplessness that gutted you the most. I felt emotionally drained afterwards and you, Nicholas, were absolutely right  in pointing out that this production shows the main character being consumed whole by his misery, guild and angst, with no saving grace left, no space to breathe, no silver lining and for me it was its high point, what made it truly powerful.

As for Dylan - agree with you, but I mostly meant that his lyrics is way too complicated for most Russians to understand (hardly anyone speaks fluent English here) - hence the best part of his songs (which is poignant poetry and incredible wisdoms) is lost, leaving only simple 3-chords patterns and a rusty voice to hang on to.. if you know what I mean

[peggs]

Sept 8, 2016 1:47:43 GMT Nicholas said:

Sept 2, 2016 12:50:48 GMT rumbledoll said:

A) By using weird phrases and writing long spiels, I hopefully sound relatively smart and informed, whereas truth be told I haven’t a clue what I’m going on about most of the time. I say it’s a directorial choice – I’ve no idea how direction really works, I’ve just got to blame somebody and Kent will do.

B) Ivanov’s depressed, making him a misanthrope. In the Grandage version, his misery was one part of a bigger world. In this version, his misery was ALL the world. As you say, he was staring into this chasm of darkness, and it seemed the stage itself was that chasm: in how grotesquely the supporting characters were played (cattily gossiping whilst playing cards and ignoring Ivanov’s pain, making fun of genuine misery – it was like a Hogarth painting), the show shared his misanthropic view of other people. So I suppose I mean less Ivanov focused, and more through Ivanov’s eyes. In its way that was great, a truly immersive look at depression, but I think it gave Sosanya and Mcardle less to dig their teeth into than Mckee and Hiddleston had. I did like how dark and misanthropic this felt, but I preferred the more observational and even-handed Branagh version.

But I would say that – you say that for you Ivanov was what first made you not hate Chekhov, for me Ivanov was what first wowed me about theatre in the first place! 2008! Eight years, time flies...

A) It's very convincing, keep up the long spiels!
B) Ahhh now that makes sense and makes me view it in a different way and can understand why this play worked for you, interesting interpretation and yes would explain some of the other character portrayals, I like your Hogarth link, good insight. Thanks for that, I think that makes it better in my head which I was rather eager to do as yes I loved Beaux Strat too and saw it rather a lot of times because whilst all the cast was good Geoffrey Streatfeild was just sublime.

[Jan]

I thought Nina Sosanya was unremarkable in Ivanov and Platonov. Couldn't Anna Chancellor have played one of those parts ? Employing a great actress and limiting her to one role seems like a waste.

[Deleted]

Sept 8, 2016 8:44:36 GMT rumbledoll said:

Just for a bit of fun - Chekhov challenge with NT cast (you have to guess which play the phrase comes from)

Round 1 (James McArdle vs Nina Sosanya)

Round 2 (Olivia Vinall vs Joshua James)

The Final

'Seagull trophy' cracked me up )))

"I wasn't supposed to say 'oh no, I have to do it again', was I?" 

[mallardo]

After the indignities inflicted upon The Seagull in recent years by Headlong and by (shudder) Anya Reiss, how wonderful it was to see it played straight in Jonathan Kent's NT production. What an astonishingly powerful play it is when allowed to breathe its own air. Why on earth do people want to "update" Chekhov, to make it somehow more "relevant"? Nothing could be more relevant than the original text. As a study of the human condition it is eternally relevant.

This is a fine and quite funny production with some wonderful performances. I loved Peter Egan's Sorin and Adrian Lukis's suave Dr. Dorn - does anyone else assume that he is Masha's real father? I thought this production pointed at that.

I especially loved Geoffrey Streatfeild's Trigorin who handled his big scene explicating the everlasting insecurities of the writer's life with such ease and spontaneity it was if one had never really heard it before. I was a bit disappointed in Anna Chancellor's Arkadina, however. I thought she went for the big effects, all poses and attitudes, never quite revealing the turmoil that lies beneath.

But the play ultimately belongs to Kostya and Nina and Joshua James and Olivia Vinall were both superb, a beautiful match for each other. I don't think Vinall quite brought off her final scene but she came damn close so full marks to her. When she says "I am a seagull, no I'm an actress" she's fighting for her identity. The seagull is a character in someone else's story, someone else's version of her, and in her despair that's how she's seeing herself - and trying not to. It strikes me as a close parallel to the girl who opens the second act of Groundhog Day, singing "Playing Nancy". I wonder if Tim Minchin had Nina in mind, just a little.

Chekhov always seems to bring out these sorts of speculations.

[Jan]

Sept 16, 2016 8:11:36 GMT mallardo said:

After the indignities inflicted upon The Seagull in recent years by Headlong and by (shudder) Anya Reiss, how wonderful it was to see it played straight in Jonathan Kent's NT production. What an astonishingly powerful play it is when allowed to breathe its own air. Why on earth do people want to "update" Chekhov, to make it somehow more "relevant"? Nothing could be more relevant than the original text. As a study of the human condition it is eternally relevant.

However Sir David Hare hasn't given us entirely the "original text" has he.

[mallardo]

Sept 17, 2016 13:44:19 GMT Jan said:

Sept 16, 2016 8:11:36 GMT mallardo said:

After the indignities inflicted upon The Seagull in recent years by Headlong and by (shudder) Anya Reiss, how wonderful it was to see it played straight in Jonathan Kent's NT production. What an astonishingly powerful play it is when allowed to breathe its own air. Why on earth do people want to "update" Chekhov, to make it somehow more "relevant"? Nothing could be more relevant than the original text. As a study of the human condition it is eternally relevant.

However Sir David Hare hasn't given us entirely the "original text" has he.

No, and there were definite clunkers in there - lines changed not to improve them but simply to make a change; Hare earning his fee.  But, that said, it was the closest approximation to what Chekhov wrote that I've seen in a while and for that I am grateful. 

[rumbledoll]

Sept 17, 2016 17:39:42 GMT mallardo said:

Sept 17, 2016 13:44:19 GMT Jan said:

However Sir David Hare hasn't given us entirely the "original text" has he.

No, and there were definite clunkers in there - lines changed not to improve them but simply to make a change; Hare earning his fee.  But, that said, it was the closest approximation to what Chekhov wrote that I've seen in a while and for that I am grateful. 

I re-read all three in original language just before seeing them at The National and I second that. Pity he dropped Masha's great openning line from The Seagull and one very particular argument in Platonov, but otherwise a job well done! Very close to the text.

[Jan]

Sept 17, 2016 22:06:14 GMT rumbledoll said:

Sept 17, 2016 17:39:42 GMT mallardo said:

No, and there were definite clunkers in there - lines changed not to improve them but simply to make a change; Hare earning his fee.  But, that said, it was the closest approximation to what Chekhov wrote that I've seen in a while and for that I am grateful. 

I re-read all three in original language just before seeing them at The National and I second that. Pity he dropped Masha's great openning line from The Seagull and one very particular argument in Platonov, but otherwise a job well done! Very close to the text.

But Platonov uncut has a playing time of 5hrs so he can't have been all that close to the text.

[rumbledoll]

I know - he got rid of the most unimportant characers and non-essential babbling but I would not so easily drop the bit where the doctor tells Platonov that before accusing others of their sins better look at yourself in a mirror and ask if you are entitled to do that.

[lynette]

Loved it. Great day. What the NT does well. Tired now.

[PalelyLaura]

Same here. Brilliant day. Chekhov is my favourite playwright and these productions reinforced why.

They brought the whole cast and crew on stage right at the end. Several standing ovations including an enthusiastic one from me. Loved every minute.

[lynette]

Oct 9, 2016 8:54:08 GMT PalelyLaura said:

Same here. Brilliant day. Chekhov is my favourite playwright and these productions reinforced why.

They brought the whole cast and crew on stage right at the end. Several standing ovations including an enthusiastic one from me. Loved every minute.

Where were you sitting? I had my badge on! 
Great, eh?