We have to admit that we are failing. But homo
sapiens has not yet failed. (Greta Thunberg)
Best
moments (and worst!)
My
single favourite moment of the whole play was actually just a MOMENT – which I
remember to have read and liked but so suddenly understood in its caustic irony
that I made a loud noise. It was the moment when Professor Serebryakov
announces that he might write a treatise about how people should live their
lives. What!!!??? How can anybody SEE all these people in their utter misery
and not want to cry but sit down and write a treatise???
Which is
what I am doing right now – ummmh??? But it is not my intention to write a
treatise, it is just the only thing I can do “about it”. I HAVE to write so as
not to lose some of my favourite theatre moments ever. I remember that I
panicked a bit because, immediately after the show, I was looking for my
favourite moment when I READ the play, which I knew I had seen and found that
it played out as I had imagined – just infinitely better. And I couldn’t
remember what it was! (Of course I found it again …)
I
certainly loved THIS moment because it turned out to be so analytic – but the
kind of analysis I only find in the theatre and very rarely in films. That I
suddenly feel as if I understand everything because understanding feels like
barfing my guts. Therefore explaining WHAT I understood isn’t really the point,
but the moment certainly contained this synopsis of what I had seen. At least
as long as I was in the theatre, I totally was with Chekhov in his analysis about
what it entails to be human and alive, how we talk about everything and realize
nothing … And even that - to maybe find out how we should live? - we need to
understand UNHAPPINESS.
This
time I won’t proceed from worst to best but roughly in order of the
performance. But first I need to take up a basic issue about the text. I
already wrote that “rewriting” the play proved to be a good thing. Not that I
understood all the changes I noticed, or approved of them. More often than once
I felt as if the text had lost its bite, but it was mostly compensated by the
feeling that the actors played “it” anyway. Most of what wasn’t explicit
anymore just became part of the big SUBTEXT that I felt to be about ninety
percent of this play. For example, they skipped most of the great self-analysis
where Dr Astrov is concerned. Therefore some of my favourite bits of this
character were sacrificed, as him saying explicitly that he cannot love
anymore, or – when he is speaking to Sonya (!) about Yelena: “But that wouldn’t
be love, would it?” Or – talking with Yelena about Sonya - that there would
have been a time when he might have considered it (= marrying her), but not
anymore. In this production he just says that he cannot FEEL anything anymore
and – impatiently: “It is too LATE!” And that says it all! - I was sorry to
lose the self-analysis, especially in the beginning, but I also noticed that
self-analysis is already a big step BEYOND suffering and was easily convinced
that it would have felt wrong to dwell on it. To concentrate on the SUFFERING
AND DESPAIR proved so much more efficient.
There
were other bits I missed, painfully even, but the general direction into which
the text had been developed was so right because it was cleansed of everything
that would have made it cumbersome and intricate and purely intellectual, so
that the actors had a text where feelings might “run” smoothly. This
straightforwardness and “permeability” was taken up in the stage setting –
which was simple and practical, but beautiful and poetic with the light and the
big glass screen through which we could see the TREES outside. Most important,
it didn’t contain anything to remind us that this was Chekhov (= 19th
century!). And this was also the most important thing about the text: that it
was developed in a direction that made it feel entirely CONTEMPORARY. This is
probably the single most important and best thing to be said about the
production: that it FELT so naturally timeless - without any obvious “updates”!
- that “we” never perceive that historic screen between us and the characters
but have this immediate access and communication with OUR OWN feelings.
My worst
moment I have fortunately already dealt with. It was the first “scene” (there
are no “scenes”, so rather first entry of the first act) – until the moment
Vanya awakes from his nap and immediately starts bitching. Then we finally get
a bit of entertainment. It cannot have been REMOTELY as long as I remember it …
😞 As I already wrote: I got over it, but, for the time being, I
was really relieved to have somebody else to look at.
I
remember now that I wasn’t that happy with Vanya in the beginning. I enjoyed
the bitching but didn’t fully understand it yet, and only looking back I can
appreciate how efficiently Toby Jones set me right about his character. In my
book of literary prejudices Vanya already had an entry before I even started
reading – basically as a PATHETIC character. Somebody not to be taken too
seriously. And - even though I thought I had! - I hadn’t really rewritten that
entry. So, Toby Jones took that off my hands – otherwise the play wouldn’t have
worked! – In fact, if I don’t take somebody too seriously I don’t really LISTEN
to them, and – one thing I already noticed when I realized he would play Vanya
- Toby Jones is one of these actors who always makes me look, and listen. And
when I am really listening I immediately get the impression that Vanya is
really intelligent – so, that he might have been a Dostoevsky or what not is
not ENTIRELY a hyperbole! He can also be genuinely funny, and - as I found
later, mostly in his exchange with Yelena - he is compassionate and socially
competent. And all this is really important to pick up for this play to work because
it is essential that his pathetic behaviour in the third act is not an
expression of who he is but of his acute suffering and despair – and the lack
of means to express himself “appropriately”. Quite like the bitching – that gets
GENUINELY annoying, not just for the characters on the stage! – must be
understood as self-preservation and pain management. Even if we decide that
Vanya is a disagreeable person, we CANNOT fail to understand why.
Here is
a good place to remember the two “big” moments of Telegin – which actually
became more of a favourite than I would have thought because they were so
surprising. Yes, there were two! Almost right at the beginning when he stands
up for himself in front of Yelena – who cannot even remember his name though she
sees him every day – and then the one where he is telling the story of his life.
I liked them so much because they are such a great example of how infinitely
deeper Connor McPherson understood Chekhov than I did – even though I had
already been on the right track. Checkhov took kindness and compassion – as a
tribute to EVERY proper human being – REALLY seriously.
In fact,
I realize now that almost the whole play consists of favourite moments! (Which
is already enough to justify my compulsive writing! 😉) One of my favourite
features was the way Vanya and Yelena connected. It is tragic, but they COULD
have been really comfortable with each other – and a comfort to each other – if
Vanya didn’t desire her. I think HE offers her genuine compassion and friendship,
and partially grants her relief from the inhuman boredom. And she appreciates
it and is grateful for it – until he oversteps a boundary. Then she resolutely
pushes him back, and he knows anyway that he will never get what he wants.
Nonetheless SHE is bound to make him suffer - without intending to! – and HE
annoys and vexes her. It is genuinely sad because there is such potential of
kindness and understanding in their relationship that can only come out when it
is played. They could be so comfortable with each other, and make one another’s
lives better – except they CAN’T!
There is
an easy transition here to my absolute favourite “scene” because the same
dynamics are played out there between Dr Astrov and Sonya condensed into one
brief moment. It is so beautiful because it is something that occurs
ACCIDENTIALLY, as naturally as these moments occur in real life – and turns out
as elusive. In fact, I had Chekhov down
as “master of the elusive”, but I didn’t really know what I meant until I saw this. Another one of these moments where the actors
played purely “subtext”. It might as well have been my most beautiful single
theatre moment ever. It certainly was the saddest. There is a moment where both
their feelings are completely laid open to each other. There IS intense
communication, but the meaning of it is completely different for both of them
because, as Sonya is in love with him, HER feelings are entirely about him –
whereas the feelings she awakes in him are entirely about him as well. Which
doesn’t mean that he is not infinitely grateful for the relief he gets, but it
is not “personal”. It is kind of painful to see how just taking the edge off
suffering can be such a big thing. As I read it, this scene is sufficient to
explain that they could never have been an item. In my opinion, it is so sad
because – if Sonya didn’t desire him so much, and if he, deep down, wasn’t such
a macho arsehole - they COULD have been such good FRIENDS! With all their
boundedness and imperfections they are both such substantial and genuinely beautiful
human beings, and COULD have helped one another infinitely to make their lives
better.
There is
a transition again to the second worst moment … Good news is: there were actually
only TWO, the rest was infinitely good. (I think with the exception of the
nightly scene with Professor Serebryakov that turned out a bit lame, but this
wasn’t really that important.) It was the moment where Dr Astrov says that a
woman can only be a man’s friend AFTER she has been his mistress. (👎👎👎!!!) I think I cannot be much mistaken about the fact that Richard Armitage
liked it as little as I did and wasn’t entirely sure about how to play this –
to his credit! But it is a compliment to the validity of the decisions the
director had taken that this stood out like a sore spot. Nonetheless I grudgingly
approved of the decision not to sacrifice it because – especially in
correspondence with the “male bonding scene” later - it is so constructive to what happens between
men and women – or doesn’t happen, for example between Sonya and Dr Astrov. It
is just that it is such a 19th century way of looking at something
that is STILL there in the relationships between the sexes – if we like it or
not! – and will be in the foreseeable future as it has probably been the same
since we were cavemen (or – women).
I loved
the male bonding – immediately followed by the female bonding between Yelena
and Sonya. (Like almost everybody they HAVE a relationship that is not without
potential, but they also have a serious issue – which, in this case, gets
settled entirely!) I realize that I loved it because they took this opportunity
to bring out the division of the world in male and female – the “beauty” of it
as well as the way it becomes a source of (needless) suffering. And here is the
slot for the million pound question why men always think that attractive women
are trying to ensnare them. I know it is really difficult (for women!) to take
this seriously, but please take a deep breath and try because it is important!
Men actually CANNOT HELP thinking this because it is exactly what HAPPENS to
them when they see an attractive woman. She doesn’t really have to DO anything
– and this was the thing I loved most about Rosalind Eleazar’s mature acting:
that she made it so abundantly clear that Yelena DOESN’T do anything. And, as I
had been so curious about how it would play out on the stage that Dr Astrov
suddenly proposes sex to her, I watched closely what is going on between these
two people beforehand – and was delighted. Richard Armitage playing subtext was
a sight for sore eyes!
The
great thing is that, in this case, I have actual proof that “men” probably wouldn’t
agree with me here. The only review about the play I have read because it was
linked by “London Theatre” was written by a man. (And it reminded me why I am
not in the habit of reading reviews. The only awake wrong expectations and
cause irritation – even when they are good, which this one was. My own eyes and
ears, and feelings, are just such an infinitely better instrument FOR ME to
assess what is actually going on on the stage.)
And he wrote that Yelena is “madly in love” with Astrov. Sorry but –
bollocks!!! I do this very seldom because I don’t feel my authority AS A WOMAN
to be that great, but in this case it cannot be helped. Clearly: male
projection! The actress was so totally clear about everything Yelena is feeling
– which I admired particulary because she didn’t DO much. And there is no
indication – ever! - of Yelena being in LOVE with Dr Astrov - as there isn’t in
the text either! - though she certainly finds him fascinating. And of course
she would want to sleep with him! But that wouldn’t be love, would it?
Oh! I
like it how I have managed to “turn” this – or rather how THEY did, making this
play feel so much more contemporary in an unobtrusive way than could ever be
achieved by any obvious “uptdates”. Waking this morning, I remembered with
pleasure the beautiful stage setting – and how “contextual” it had been. It was
not really a ROOM where people belong in and are kind of stuck – as I
unconsciously thought it had to be like in Chekhov. But I was wrong. It was
more like a state of being that everybody shares – or rather everybody who is
still alive: transitional, slightly messy and kind of OPEN. A space that
invites us to put OUR OWN categories into question. In fact, all this proves
that “Chekhov” ACTUALLY has done something to the human stuff within me, that
it actually got refined and shifted about a bit. And this is an amazing thing
to observe! I did before, but never so explicitly, and it is something that
especially THEATRE does to me so that it is not quite the same as my other
fictional experiences. I noticed before that I cannot distance myself from the
text in the same way, and this time I noticed that this is because I don’t WANT
to. I actually enjoy it when they are messing with me – take my own thoughts and
feelings so seriously, and even set me straight in this way. Amazing …
In fact,
I never minded their setting me straight, especially not in this case. The
toughest moment for me reading it had been when Dr Astrov proposes sex to
Yelena in a way that I found offensive. That was my moment of thinking: “What
an arsehole!” (Which is something "we" don't WANT to think - especially women!) For Claudia it was another moment, but we both ultimately came to
this conclusion – which, if I am not much mistaken, a man would never have come
to. And, AFTER I had seen it, I felt differently myself – which came up in our
discussion when I always said: “Yes, but I can understand HIM as well …” One
reason for this was that I felt more lenient when I realized that Yelena
doesn’t get hurt BECAUSE of his insensitive behaviour. As she is so resilient
and competent in dealing with men, it doesn’t even put her in an awkward and
disagreeable position. Nonetheless, he hurts her UNCONSIOUSLY – a lot! - by
opening the wound of her own hopelessly misery.
And THIS
was the single best thing about this production for me. As they clearly took up
every opportunity of showing how everybody hurts everybody else, taking great
care at the same time not to expose anybody as an “arsehole”, they so clearly brought
it out that “we” mostly don’t hurt others intentionally - because we sadistically enjoy it to lash out
at other people - but unintentionally because of OUR OWN inadequacies, our own
boundedness, our own misery. We CANNOT HELP hurting one another, and this will
always be so, as long as we are still alive and suffering ourselves.
That
grates because I have actually become compulsive about AVOIDING to make other
people feel bad, always being so careful and polite and accommodating so that
they wouldn’t be tempted to make me suffer in return. So - even though I am
feeling very much alive a the moment - in Chekhov’s book I might already be
dead? Well, dealing with something like this, at least I am picking up signs of
life. Yesterday, discussing the show with Claudia another time, I noticed something
very strange. When we took up the issue again yesterday if marriage with Sonya
would have been a way out of his misery for Dr Astrov, she explained patiently
what she meant, and I just thought: I can’t ARGUE with that! But all this time
there was this FEELING contradicting her so strongly which I felt DISTINCTLY as
some kind of pressure right beneath my COLLARBONES! Never noticed that I had
feelings THERE! (Also an indication that it might be interesting to notice my “body
feelings” more when I am reading?) And now I can explain my resistance, and why
I agreed so much with Chekhov – as I think I do! - and what the ultimate “timelessness”
was that made me like this show so much. It is because the only hope I can still
see is not in settling things, but in openness and transition, and change. That
must be the reason why I liked the speech by Greta Thunberg so much – and
probably why I can find any hope AT ALL in “Chekhov” …
I
understand now why, reading it beforehand, I loved the ending – especially one
bit that could have turned out in a number of ways: when Dr Astrov is reaching
out to Vanya telling him that there is no hope for BOTH of them. It might have
turned out sarcastic – which would have been entirely wrong. I think I
understood the play rather well already – implicitly – or had gone about ten
percent of the journey they had taken when I was reading it. So I was totally
pleased with where “we” arrived. I had felt this moment to be one of GENUINELY
reaching out, and it was. Dr Astrov is offering the only thing he CAN offer to
“bring him back to life”: his own misery. There is no prospect of hope he can
offer him, no comfort. The only thing he can show him is his own beating human
heart …
I don’t
even think that it will help. The way Vanya is feeling at the end, the only way
of helping him would probably be what Dr Astrov has denied him: medicide.
Nonetheless – “we” cannot actually stop doing this. Even FOR OUR OWN GOOD, I
think, we cannot stop TRYING …
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen