“Uncle Vanya” - the benefit of the doubt

“Experience Anton Chekhov’s masterpiece in a stunning, new light filled with dark humour and hidden passions.”

The announcement on “London Theatre News”(letter) certainly sounds enticing, but reading the play felt very different – though I spotted the humour, I think, the desperate irony of it all. I like it especially because it makes me aware that I STILL don’t know what irony can be. How many facets it has, and in what rotten places it can be found.  As I wrote, I expect this to become much clearer seeing it on the stage – (in case this will actually happen, of course. At the moment, I am less optimistic than I was when I started reading. But I guess that’s Chekhov “taking over” – definitely enhances the feeling that nothing I want that much is ever going to happen.)

I wasn’t exactly reading “Uncle Vanya” these last few days – this time of the year where there are so many holidays that I barely noticed I was working. But I continued reading Chekhov, and this meant to stay in touch with the play, continually “uploading” what I have already read.  I read the Wikipedia on Chekhov, or poured over it, to find some indication for my intuition about Dr. Astrov being (partially) a self-portrait of the author. (And found it.) I read part of the introduction of my Oxford paperback edition of the plays (which contains “Ivanov”, “The Seagull”, “Uncle Vanya”, “Three Sisters”, and “The Cherry Orchard” – in the order the plays were originally produced on the stage, and probably the order in which they were written). And, so far, I read “Ivanov” and the first act of “The Seagull”. Besides, I had a very constructive talk with Claudia at the Victorian Teahouse about “Uncle Vanya” as she has been reading the play at the same time. And I’ll jot down what happened to me doing all this because this turned out unexpectedly interesting so far.  

At the moment, it even feels as if I had turned a page on reading – and on “realism”. Which is great, and scary because turning a page always means leaving something behind. (This might be the ad hoc reason for watching all the “old” stuff by Richard Armitage “on the side” – because I feel that this might be the last time I’ll want to do it.) Reading so much Shakespeare for the last … WHAT!!! FIVE years now certainly was this unbelievable experience, but it meant getting used to it as well. At the beginning I noticed it as a completely new environment to read and live in. (Fictional worlds: the main point of them is that they are somewhere to STAY – outside the real world! I don’t really stay in all the text environments that I explore. Actually, in very few of them – as I just noticed watching a lot of old stuff on DVD to file it - and STAYING THERE might be the activity that turns them into fictional WORLDS.) Now I don’t notice the environment anymore, being so used to it. But I know that I got into it so deep and stayed so long because I LIKED it, and this is the main difference. I didn’t understand why I liked it so much better than anything else I have ever read, but I certainly noticed that it is an environment that allows me to get into NEW things. An environment that SET ME FREE. With Chekhov, it is the other way round. I so distinctly remember reading the first few lines of “Uncle Vanya”, uploading my old acquaintance with Chekhov and thinking: No, that’s definitely over! NO WAY I’ll go there EVER again.

And then I DID … Well, in a way, I had to because it was “on”. Because we got tickets for this play I would have been looking forward to no matter what – and this unique opportunity of exchanging my thoughts with someone else. No doubt that, without these enticements, I would never have taken up Chekhov again! Somebody had to throw the bait – and “they” definitely knew what to throw me – but then “Chekhov” took over … Right now, I am just amazed how unexpected this turned out and am trying not to pretend that I know anything about it. But there is no doubt that there is a most substantial fictional world in the making. I can FEEL the difference, compared with the other – rather more attractive! - fictional opportunities that would be available to me at the moment. This is the “ultimate stage” of realism that I reach very seldom. That a fictional world becomes so “real” – necessary, unavoidable? – that I couldn’t get away once I committed to it. This might even be the most liberating experience about “Shakespeare”: that it always gets me into something else. Chekhov just gets me right in there – into the cage! No wonder I began looking for a way out as soon as I got caught. (And, this time, I would really want to know what it feels like to actually BE in one of these cages, playing one of these characters!)

One of the first things I noticed was that I knew the world so well already, almost immediately followed by the realization that I hadn’t really understood anything about it. And I obviously decided to allow myself a lot of time for this. Easing into it appears appropriate here, not jumping to conclusion as I did in my last post!

And this will mean patiently going back to the characters, as long as I am reading this. Which is also the most fascinating part of it, anticipating that I will see them on the stage. And there they will turn out very different, I am certain – as they should! But in this case I won’t get anything out of pretending that we weren’t already acquainted. One thing that I noticed talking with Claudia was that I had been unclear about what I meant when I described Dr. Astrov’s behaviour as “monstrous”. I certainly didn’t mean his behaviour towards Sonya! He has no idea that she loves him until Helen approaches him on her behalf, and then his reaction - one of the most brutal moments of the play: “No” as the only comment on the big revelation! – is just about the truth of the matter. As bad as this might be, in the long run, the bare truth is always the best remedy. And of course it is right that he intends to stay away indefinitely after this, to spare her the pain. Considering his past behaviour, I doubt that he will actually follow through with this, but there is no reason to doubt his good intentions.

No, when I wrote “monstrous”, I meant his behaviour towards Helen. And I even had a bad conscience about being judgmental - as I apparently noticed that KIND AND UNDERSTANDING is a much better attitude for Chekhov. It’s all getting bad enough “on its own”. And, exploring this, I just noticed something even more astonishing. The best way of actually GETTING MYSELF OUT of this world is being judgmental – and, with somebody like Helen, it shouldn’t be that difficult. But obviously I HAD to follow Chekhov – who definitely had been throwing me a bait with Dr. Astrov being so accomplished and genuinely attractive AND self-conscious at the same time, which must be my ideal of what a human being should be like! Nonetheless somebody who feels real – not a “paper character”! Reading this as I did – feeling so “understood” -  I was inclined to do what Chekhov “wanted” = following him and be kind and understanding even towards people I would have despised or loathed as the reader I was thirty years ago. I first noticed this about Vanya – and it certainly helped that I was so looking forward to seeing Toby Jones play him. So, I made a GENUINE EFFORT to understand him – and it wasn’t that hard!

I didn’t really try with the other characters before we met at the Victorian House. I purposefully shoved Sonya and Professor Serebryakov to one side, assigning them a category. Which is what we do with people we judge to be unimportant or which we don’t like. Actually, I am looking forward to Ciáran Hinds playing the desperately unhappy Professor very much, and am sure he will do this a hundred and thirty percent RIGHT, as he always does. And I was taking the character seriously as he has a valid reason for being so unhappy. But that can wait until I will see it – or won’t? - he isn’t actually THAT important.

Where Sonya is concerned, it is so obvious that I shouldn’t have to mention it: She is just LIKE ME – or rather as I wanted to see me when I was young. And I give her that: she certainly IS admirable – so, trying to be that person wasn’t ENTIRELY a waste of time! 😉 Even better: She actually found the man she could love for a GOOD reason AND is mature enough to accept his darker side as a correlative of his good qualities – so, should even be capable of developing a GENUINE love for him. The difference between us is obviously that this man is actually there, in her life, and won’t have her – and this is where I’ll never go. And not just for the good reason that – as part of the audience! – actually being in one of these cages would instantly take all the fun out of it.

   

Unlike with these two people whom I felt I already knew so well, I was fascinated with Helen. I think because she is so “empty” in a way that she COULD be almost anything. And because there is this gulf between her being such an apparent “nonentity” and having such an impact on other people. Obviously she is beautiful – but I always think that people should be able get over this. (Well, there is a lot of evidence against it – and maybe I just cannot appreciate what it feels like to be bored stiff inside …) Anyway, I came to think that there must be something more to her - and I noticed this when I tried to make a case for her arguing with Claudia. Not very successfully because there isn’t really much of a case to make. And I probably should trust Dr. Astrov: Being so perceptive about himself, he should be a good JUDGE of other people. So, was this just me trying to be KIND AND UNDERSTANDING???

Maybe the most interesting thing about all this is the way I REACT to these characters. From the beginning – and this may be the ultimate stage of realism! – I reacted to them not as if they were characters in a play but as if they were PEOPLE. Which means real beings that go BEYOND that stage and that text. And I suppose THIS is Chekhov’s major achievement: that he can get “us” to do this. It is how this singular human COMPLEXITY is created. I might be right about them or wrong – and, like in real life, I’ll never know! But, for some reason, I became inclined to treat them with kindness.

There are only two people in this play – out of five! – who  are – or might be? - in need of kindness: Vanya and Helen. Dr. Astrov is not. He lacks nothing but what he cannot find in himself, and what is nowhere else to be found. And I know myself well enough to know that Sonya will always cope. What she would need to be happy is somebody to love, not somebody who loves her. (I might be wrong there, but I will never know, unless she “turns” me on the stage …) Professor Serebryakov is plagued with illness and resentment but too self-centered to RESPOND to kindness. He just drains Helen, whereas she cannot get anything out of their relationship anymore. Not even a sense of purpose. (Might be wrong there as well!)

Vanya has genuine human qualities, established beyond doubt by his past actions and unacknowledged loyalty for Serebryakov. What actually is ATTRACTIVE  and moving about him is what I’d call a “purity of feeling”. And I think that Dr. Astrov recognizes this and responds to him as a kindred spirit – the only other man in his environment with genuine human content! Therefore he feels compassion for him and treats him with kindness as a friend. Same for Sonya – on whom he probably never wasted a conscious thought, but whom he likes and genuinely respects nonetheless because of her good qualities. I suppose, all her live she has been nothing but useful, and this is what he can appreciate in himself as well. Out of genuine respect for her feelings, he is even prepared to make a sacrifice. 

It is because of this humanity that his behaviour towards Helen struck me as monstrous. He even feels contempt for her and sees her as a nonentity – and this is probably the REASON that he proposes to have sex with her. (Of course he WANTED to have sex with her for a long time, but he would have taken it up in a different way – or not at all - if he really cared for her.) I am very curious about how this will turn out on the stage because I realized that I came to JUDGE his behaviour so harshly following Chekhovs “lead” on kindness and understanding and the benefit of the doubt. As I have no clue about Helen at all, I should have followed Dr. Astrov’s judgement about her as established above. Instead I followed Chekov. Unlike for his “alter ego” in the play, for him there are few people – or none – whom he wouldn’t want to give the benefit of the doubt. (This is even the most important thing that I think happened in the big gap between “Ivanov” and “The Seagull”. He became less and less interested in judging people instead of understanding them.)

So, I gave Helen the benefit of the doubt and assumed that she might deserve kindness. She might in fact be a “nonentity” – the incurable human disease in “Chekhov” – but she certainly doesn’t WANT to be. And she might FEEL and resent to be treated as one … Though this MIGHT not be the case at all! This is what I am so looking forward to see on the stage – because I expect to see the SUBTEXT other people are creating, by directing it and by acting. And, as I already established about irony, there is a big amount of subtext. Countless opportunities of bringing this play to life. And there is, without doubt, a big subtext about sex. NOT JUST what “we“ supply, being born in the twentieth century, but what actually HAS to be there. It might very well be that Helen is past any consideration for kindness. She will certainly have to be shocked – but the shock might not be (entirely) unpleasant …? Maybe, given a little more time, she might have come to the conclusion that a healthy shag would be exactly what the doctor prescribed.

“Dark humour and hidden passions” – feels about right, now I came to think that this is what I began to add myself! And, to rub this in: The subtext must not be added just because “we” feel that it should be there but because of what is actually MISSING. The hidden being so much bigger and heavier than what is revealed on the surface: I think this might be the “aesthetical” pull that drew me into “Chekhov” so fast that I became dizzy. 

So, I was definitely right from the beginning: It became more and more crucial where I MYSELF am in this play. Where I don’t want to be and where I choose to be, and what attitude I take towards these people. And I cannot help feeling that making me a part of what happens in this way is the biggest portion of “aesthetical” respect that I have been issued in a long time.