Uncle Vanya – a treatise about how we should NOT live our lives …

Preliminaries and characters

Mission accomplished! We actually have been there and have seen it AND it was great! Though actually quite heartbreaking. But this might even be the best that can be said about it.

I’ll try and refrain from jumping to conclusions right away but register impressions and emotions. Starting with the WORST that happened and progressing towards the BEST – a great method of managing one’s feelings that one of my nephews was taught by his parents and which I have emulated ever since. 

There were exactly two events right at the beginning that distressed  - and stressed - me. The first began to happen already before the curtain was raised, when I was comfortably seated in the tiny, tiny VIP lounge with my glass of champagne … (We bought the weird VIP tickets because we wanted the great seats, and there wasn’t much of an additional expense, but it turned out to be great with the privacy and the champagne and, of course, no “important person” in sight!) … recovering from my amazement that we actually made it and running through the programme, and when I noticed that the director had probably completely rewritten the text so that I wouldn’t see the version I had read and found so interesting. I was right. (But it actually turned out to be a good thing …)

In the beginning, though, it was part of my utter disappointment when the curtain was raised and I saw Richard Armitage on the stage – a moment I had been so looking forward to – and I think even BEFORE he said anything I had a premonition that he was going to bore me. Wait a second – THIS IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! I am actually here now, in THIS theatre, seeing THIS play, with RICHARD ARMITAGE before me on the stage, and he is BORING me … 😢😢😢!!! He even went on boring me for some time into the first act AND I had a tough time adjusting to the strange text and these characters feeling slightly wrong because of it … Disaster!!!

BUT … and I admit I am rather proud of this – I actually have learned two important things by now. The first: When something is going so wrong with a text that should turn out amazing, and under circumstances like these – where there are much cleverer people than me dealing with it – then it is most probably ME who is wrong. And I noticed that I have finally learned to TRUST Richard Armitage.   

Though, maybe, I just thought fatalistically that I had to give it a go now that I was here and keep my eyes (and ears) peeled – and my heart open. As there is this thing about SURPRISES: They are NOT going to be what I expected.

Whatever I did, it worked. It would never have worked, though, without him recovering from whatever had been wrong in the beginning. (He clearly wasn’t really “in character”.) Whereas Vanya correctly turned out as the centre of this unequalled “vortex” of silent tragedy, Dr Astrov is something like the beating human heart of the play. (Or, more precisely, about one half of it …) Which, I believe, Richard Armitage understood as I never could have understood it myself – though I started out in this direction when I was reading the play. And took his responsibility as seriously as he usually does.

For the time being, though, I was rather relieved to see the other actors enter the stage and claim my attention. And, this time, I’ll take the occasion and say something about EVERY character on this stage because it actually is important in this case. One more preliminary thing, though, before I start on this. The second best thing about this special Chekhov experience was something outside the theatre. It was that the two of us went there together, saw it at the same time, both loved it, and were able to synchronize our reading of it. And – for the first time ever! – I was CERTAIN that somebody else had seen the same play I had. Of course, as we are different people, we FELT differently about a number of issues, but the main thing that happened was basically the same. And WHAT happened to us, and the way it happened, was the BEST thing about this production, and I cannot help feeling that this is the greatest compliment that it could ever get.

Though there are of course characters that are more central to the “vortex” of the play – as, of course, Vanya, then Dr Astrov, and, as we both felt, in this production Sonya even more than Yelena who also belongs to this “inner circle” – the great thing about this vortex is that, once somebody has entered the social cluster, they become instantly a part of it and important in their own way. Like people in real life creating a social aura and beginning to produce projections and “social stuff” for other people in an incredibly complex way. This is what I came to find endlessly fascinating as soon as the Chekhov vortex began to pick up steam on the stage. And I believe that this must be so for actors as well, at least for those who understand stage acting in this way (=things HAPPENING on a stage), but also a real challenge difficult to take up anew on every single performance. Because you have to provide for your own character, and get everything exactly right, and then always keep this openness for multiple things going on on the stage. I never noticed before the complexity it requires for the actors to come with ALL that the character is carrying beforehand – in this case: all these single cages of misery! – on the stage and then enter with it into these multiple inter-personal proceedings. I find it really interesting now that we both noticed that exactness of timing, or of what exactly has to happen when and where, hadn’t been a priority in staging this play. I missed it a bit because I had noticed the importance of timing in Chekhov before, as I missed the “beat”, and the pegs I had used when I read it, so that I found the text wanting in exactness. But I actually think now that it is better to give the actors this bit of personal space to move around in order to make them feel better and to keep the vortex so alive.

So, now: characters, from WORST to BEST. It was certainly the first play where there were as many actors on the stage that I knew as actors I had never seen before. And there were only two of them I didn’t like: Anna Calder-Marshall playing Nana, and Dearbhla Molloy playing Mrs Voinitsky – which didn’t hurt much because she is isolated from the other characters from the start. They even gave her more than is in the play – or than I could read out of it. As - if she had had the freedom! - she might have taken the opportunity and become the same kind of conceited and ultimately pointless intellectual as the professor whom everything that is genuinely human doesn’t touch or concern. And, in my opinion, they considerably stressed the destructive influence she had on her son. Because of this, Vanya being annoyed and sarcastic with her makes even more sense. So, though I didn’t like her playing because she was basically just a “suffragette” clichée, she was “structurally” okay. And, even though I would have probably made her more of an annoying busybody, her sitting straight up and still as if she was already dead probably made more sense. There are definitely people in this play that are already dead, or dying – which might not even be the worst position in “Chekhov” because alive “in there” basically means: still able to suffer (and to make other people suffer.) Right at the end, Vanya appears like her. Still like stone and not really reacting to anybody or anything. It feels as if he will never recover and start bitching again – and “we” are actually feeling SORRY about it!

The issue I had with Anna Calder-Marshall as Nana is more serious. As far as I can see, the character has exactly two social features (and functions) that have to be there – and which are both connected with WHO she is. For one, she is the person who holds a mirror up for everybody, and can tell the truth about them to everybody’s face because nobody would mind her. She is just the NANNY – whom nobody ever took seriously but whom they turned to nonetheless since they were children. She cannot offend because she has no power to hurt. Right in the beginning, telling Dr Astrov that he HAD BEEN young and good-looking at the time created a lot of mirth. So, everybody in the audience can make up their mind about if he still is – as he himself obviously thinks he is! It is one of these special sarcastic moments that “Chekhov” is so full of, and this feature is certainly one the actress liked to play and make as much of as possible.

But the most important feature Nana provides is that she can offer comfort and affection to ANYBODY – as she has done to the children she raised, always providing them with what they needed, soothing them when they were ill and unhappy. And EVERYBODY is able to take that from her. This easy social glue I missed already in the first scene with Astrov – and, I think, it was one of the reasons why it turned out so unsatisfactory for me. In “Chekhov” characters lack the possibility to relate directly to the audience, they need another character to make their misery available to us. (At one point I remember, Yelena has a short monologue which struck me as totally weird when I saw it on the stage … Quite like when I witness people talking to themselves in real life.) I missed it worse in the scene where she gets the professor to go to bed – and takes him off the other’s hands. Maybe the director didn’t want it there because if this scene between the two of them is fully played out it shows Serebryakov as a genuine human being. As the basis of our compassionate behaviour are in fact mirror neurons that make us able to project onto others what we would be feeling OURSELVES in a similar position, reacting to kindness and being moved by it is a basic form of humanity – which, for example, Mrs Voinitsky totally lacks. Maybe he didn’t want it because it might have been too much social complexity. Probably Serebryakov SHOULDN’T BE anything else but the ageing tyrant whom everybody in the house is dependant on.

This was also something I was sorry about because I had this moment as well, beforehand, that Claudia described: “I couldn’t believe it, I’ll see Ciáran Hinds LIVE on stage.” And then it wasn’t as special as it might have been. I am sure he did EXACTLY what was expected of him. He always struck me as an actor whom you just have to “switch on” and he will deliver whatever is required in high definition. It isn’t my favourite kind of actor, but probably the most “useful” kind. And I enjoyed every minute of everything I saw him play. I think it was in the interest of the production that he played Serebryakov extremely subdued, careful not to make us care for him or raise our compassion – though not too inhuman either. I don’t know if the director was right about this – I tend to think not! – but there is certainly enough unhappiness for us to deal with already. And Serebryakov is also one of the people who have no “chemistry” anymore with any of the others. Chemistry is messy, in real life, but it is also conducive to life GOING ON. Clearly Serebryakov is not dead yet as he is still suffering, but he is certainly dying.

Then – before I come to the people still alive AND suffering - there is Peter Wight as Telegin. Who also happens to be an actor I know rather well and was pleasantly surprised to encounter as a member of the cast. He is even in my blog already – as he played Polonius in the Andrew Scott Hamlet which I was really pleased with. In this case, though, I felt him basically to be a casting error. Not a bit of it HIS fault, though, but as he is somehow so “substantial” because of his physicality and his acting – though he wasn’t loud! – he is just not the right type for Telegin who – in my perception – is this “shrivelled”, pitiful, insubstantial, and disfigured man that nobody takes seriously. In this production he doesn’t turn out like this, but, because he has this exactness and utter sensitivity about what his characters are about and what they are feeling, he did exactly the right thing when it mattered. I was particularly struck by the scene where he is telling the story of his marriage and – basically – the story of his adult life. And, even though none of the characters on the stage takes him seriously, I am certain everybody in the audience did at that moment! In this way he fulfilled Chekhov’s design more completely than by being exactly what was written for him. We understand why he is the only person who has contrived to live comparatively happy IN his misery.

So, now there are four characters left competing about the first places. First, so last, uncontestedly, is Toby Jones as Vanya. His tragedy is the central vortex of the play, and he was quite obviously the best actor on that stage. There is nothing to be added to perfection. It entails, though, that there is not that much to write about. So, I’ll go with Rosalind Eleazar’s Yelena first, not because her acting was less great than the others' but because what she had to achieve was not quite as difficult. Though maybe it was, but it didn’t appear so. She struck me as one of these extremely gifted and sensitive actresses who would do instinctively right what she’d get to play. She just entered the stage and WAS Yelena as if there were never any questions raised about WHO that is. But I guess this was not so because being so entirely RIGHT about a character doesn’t come just like that. Probably a lot of it develops in the interactions with the other actors which is a big part of what she is – and mostly belongs in my next chapter. But the main thing was that she put a really STRONG woman into this character which turned out to be exactly the right thing to do. I already asked myself when I read it: She isn’t as “bad” as others would have her. In fact, she is rather competent and clever. What is MISSING? What was missing was exactly this WOMAN. And that she is so strong and so alive, and COULD be so many things, makes her not trying to break out of that cage so much more heartbreaking. The most interesting thing about her is, though, in what ways she becomes the target of male projections, and how competently she is dealing with that. It might even be the truest and clearest representation of the predicament of being utterly successful AS A WOMAN I have ever seen – and which, I think, has lost nothing of its actuality in the 21^st century. AND one that raised MY understanding and compassion. (Which is something I thought could never happen … There were three actors involved in this, so: next chapter …)

As I started with the women, I’ll stay with them, just because I know exactly what I want to write about them. The most ASTONISHING feat of acting – and one I was especially GRATEFUL for – was Aimée Lou Wood’s Sonya. (By the way: Couldn’t great actors come up with names I’d be actually able to REMEMBER???) Astonishing because she must really be almost as young as she looks and able to do something so complex and exact and utterly powerful. I could see the “seams” where this was “welded” together but I never mind that. It was one of these cases where I become aware that “natural” isn’t the HIGHEST category for me when it comes to acting. I like to see the grinding work behind it. And it is so much more obvious how this could have gone wrong. So much for “grateful”! It didn’t even hurt that the actress is beautiful and Sonya supposed to be plain because she got the physicality so right that no male human being would ever be struck by the thought of having sex with her – totally without making her ridiculous or clumsy. She is just natural, very competent in every day matters, empathic and passionate and very much ALIVE – and without the least bit of talent or inclination to make herself pleasing. It is totally obvious that SHE has to fall in love with Astrov. He is exactly the kind of man that suits her. And from our position off stage, watching her, “we” find her so endearing and humanely pleasing that we easily can get angry with Astrov for not seeing what we see – as Claudia did. Right! How can anybody not SEE a human being like this! - I didn’t (get angry) because Richard Armitage explained so well why he doesn’t that I could see through his eyes as well as mine. Her cage of misery becomes visible from every possible angle and is exactly what it “has” to be. The second half of the beating human heart that will never come together. Utter tragedy – from HER point of view!

I probably know exactly what I want to write about Richard Armitage’s Astrov too, I just don’t know how. I’ll switch and put him at the end because there is a transition to the next chapter. The worst for me to say about Toby Jone’s Vanya is that he played him so ultimately perfectly that I got to see exactly what I expected. And - strange person that I am - that dissatisfied me, at least in the beginning. I felt as if he didn't show me what is “behind” that character, just because I couldn’t find a chink in the “armour”. But I knew that this was stupid, and of course I forgot about it and watched fascinatedly how this was playing out. It doesn’t make Vanya less special that it is rather obvious what is the matter with him. His fate is the pillar the vortex is rotating about, and this pillar has to be really strong to hold all this – which it was. And, as usual, he was just a pleasure to watch with his exactness and great timing and amazing face acting that you can probably see from the last stalls and the highest balcony. When he was playing I was watching him full time. And there were a few genuinely surprising bits too, especially when he is interacting with Yelena. (Next chapter …)  

What I meant when I wrote that I have finally learned to trust Richard Armitage is that I can trust him to do WHAT I WANT. But of course he does it his own way, and as he is easily ten times more intelligent than I am, and about a hundred times more competent about the human stuff, he never ceases to surprise me with it. First of all, he was zero interested in playing the character in a way that everybody would “recognize” him and be pleased with it. He was interested in what would HAPPEN when HE would be playing the character. And, even though Toby Jones might have played Vanya so much more exactly and beautifully and “naturally” – so that there are not traces to be seen of “putting him together” - this is not the point for me. Richard Armitage will always be the actor who knows what I am looking for – because he might be looking for the same things? And, as he is so much more competent and tenacious than I am doing this, he always comes up with the most surprisingly best “answers” to my questions.  First of all, he ultimately showed me that Chekhov is really DIFFICULT. I noticed this writing about the show and my reading – which has been much more exhausting so far than most of the writing I have done. When we went for a drink after the show, Claudia said that she was looking forward to my blog, and I said that I’d probably not write anything because it would be too difficult to get it right. This answer was even more accurate than I would have thought. (Of course there is no way I am NOT writing about this but there is also no way I will ever get it right …) And this is because Chekhov requires an EXACTNESS of feeling that I don’t know how to apply to this kind of stuff - like messy human relationships or utter misery. Usually, I am just trying to stay clear of it. Richard Armitage tried not to skip a beat.

I was really pleased that it became such a major issue for him to show that Dr Astrov is a compassionate person, as I was dealing with this beforehand, reading the play. I am so pleased anyway how my “coarse” reading got infinitely refined when I saw this – but I was basically right about a few important issues. They just had a cleverer, more contemporary and mature version of it.

And he set me right about a number of issues. For example about the REASON why men always think that attractive women are trying to ensnare them. (It is actually quite simple … Next chapter!) Or about people running into a crisis. Even though he was really not good in the beginning he showed me clearly that Astrov is ALREADY in “crisis mode” when the curtain is raised. In fact, they all are. I could translate the urgency he showed me to the other characters, and it really helped to watch it the right way. The house is already on fire though we cannot yet see it burning. And this leads to “more burning” questions than if I hadn’t been already on red alert.

So, this became so long already and is still just a taste because it got incredibly more complex …

„Uncle Vanya“ – „Oh, if all this could be over quickly …”

Even though I tried, this time I cannot keep up with my reading. As I am reading on – having now worked my way through “Three Sisters” and “The Cherry Orchard” and starting again on “Uncle Vanya” - what I have written before just gets cancelled and I start anew. Of course I like this – but “Chekhov” proves almost too complex and dynamic for my taste. Though, right now, it feels again as if I was going deeper …

And it appears that, by making these “moves”, I learned a lot about a fictional world that I hadn’t been aware of – and about the “vortex”. (I am actually looking forward to elaborating on the concepts I have used “instinctively” when I was reading, but there is always so much reading to do that there will probably be a long period of looking forward still …)

“Why is it we have hardly started living before we all become dull, drab, boring, lazy, complacent, useless and miserable?”

definitely was one of these moments where I OBSERVED the vortex grinding to a halt. They are always great moments. It felt as if I had an answer to one of the nagging questions I was dealing with when I was reading, even though it is itself a question. When I am not looking for causality but am getting into the mode of answering “Chekhov” provides, it even appeared like a surprisingly precise answer. I just didn’t really know what the QUESTION was.

However, I remember WHEN the question came up. It came up the moment I began to read Chekhov – when, in the first act of “Uncle Vanya”, Dr. Astrov is talking about the mindless destruction of woods, and the opportunity of doing something about the CLIMATE!!!? - Even though I was thrilled – and shocked! – I think I “put this away” the moment I read it because I couldn’t deal with the timelessness right away but had to figure out the characters first. And, even though I talked with Claudia about this when we met, I never got round to dealing with it. The closest I came to asking the “timeless” question in “Chekov” was – after having identified the parallel state of our worlds as some kind of “atmosphere” of neglect and carelessness: Why does nobody CARE? And to this question the RHETORICAL question from “Three Sisters” provided a shockingly precise answer.

“Why is it we have hardly started living before we all become dull, drab, boring, lazy, complacent, useless and miserable?”

Indeed it is BECAUSE “we” become dull, drab, boring, lazy, complacent, useless and miserable before we even have a chance to know it that we are unable to genuinely care about things like trees and climate change. Besides, the quote appeared to provide an answer to my overall observation (and question) about “Chekhov”: that (or why) - even though rather disruptive things happen on that stage (like people shooting themselves, shooting at others, leaving for good …) - there is never any genuine CHANGE in people’s lives. So, that made me feel as if the carelessness and indifference about the state of the world and the inability to move forward towards happiness were somehow connected. Having struck this connection, it appears instantly trivial, but I found THE WAY Chekhov made me discover it totally exciting.

Reading on, I came upon some kind of explanation about how they might be connected – which is not satisfying AS AN EXPLANATION. However, I felt that it struck the core of the issue more than any explanation could. I found it at the end of the third act of “The Cherry Orchard”, and it comes from Lopakhin who has just been celebrating the greatest triumph of his life. He, the son of a poor peasant, who has been nothing but beaten and mistreated as a child, buying the finest piece of property in the neighbourhood to “develop” it! Immediately after almost dancing with joy, he blurts out in distress:

“Oh, if all this could be over quickly, if our miserable, mixed-up lives could somehow hurry up and CHANGE.”

This was the most “timeless” moment for me reading Chekhov. Taking up the first act of “Uncle Vanya” again, reading closely, I gathered that there isn’t THAT much of a parallel situation ON THE SURFACE as the catchword “climate” suggests. It is just that we tend to separate such issues from their context to create timelessness – something I am trying to avoid, but this time it happened to me as well. What Chekhov was writing about has nothing to do with global warming, of course, but with the protection the woods offer to create a milder, more wholesome climate. In a northern continental climate woods offer protection from rough weather and chill - whereas, in my own world, they alleviate the overheated urban atmosphere in summer. (Which, however, is kind of two ends of the same stick.) “But I love trees!” proved more “sustainable” – as I realized that trees have a lot more impact on my life - and state of mind - than I have been aware of. To my own surprise, I actually stuck with it and KEPT thinking about trees. It helped a lot that a documentary called “Das geheime Leben der Bäume” (= “The Hidden Life of Trees”) had just come to the cinema, and I watched it. And there is a book as well which I am going to read, and I know already that it is something I could have recommended to Richard Armitage for him to understand how his character is FEELING about trees. By the way, it is not the kind of esoteric crap it sounds like. It was written by a forester who has been working with trees all his life, but who also LOVES them. Who has his ear on nature, and has been trying to learn everything about them. (And it immediately answered all the questions I had about raising a forest – by cutting down and planting anew or by letting it grow.)

Somehow, all this came into “Oh, if all this could be over quickly …” not by chance. The hour of Lopakhin’s greatest triumph is also the hour of death for the cherry orchard which gets chopped down as a consequence in the last act. I even understand why this HAS to happen. There is money to be made, which is also the most important kind of energy for making things move FORWARD. And I think that this ANTAGONISM – that cannot be resolved! – is fundamental in Chekhov.

My observation about the historical and economical background having such an impact on people’s lives might have been created because I noticed PARALLEL STRUCTURES from the beginning where the representation of the world “outside” and the domaine of people’s feelings are concerned. The reason why I was drawn into Chekhov’s world in this way is that the “Chekhov vortex” plays almost entirely on an instrument I know so well – but very seldom give up so unrestrictedly to “somebody else” to play on: MY OWN FEELINGS. I noticed this already when I read the first lines of “Uncle Vanya” – so much that it spooked me and I actually closed the book. But of course I wanted to read on – and noticed that I would be fine. I suppose it was the irony that I discovered subconsciously which made me feel safe. Reassured me that I was in no danger of being stuck with this gob of “mixed-up” feelings I didn’t want … And this feature I described as “flightiness”: the experience that feelings can be cancelled. Even though I MUST feel them strongly at the moment, they will go away. This reassurance made it possible that I could open up towards these characters in a way I usually don’t. To leave the ground of analyzing them more than I usually do, and instead treat them like genuine human beings. Even more - that I WANTED to be kind and understanding and perceive them the way I think Chekhov did. To allow that there is this GRAIN of – I wouldn’t say “goodness” because this is already too much of a moral term – but of human quality and genuine feeling in EVERBODY. And, doing this, I learned to use Chekhov’s TECHNIQUES of creating emotional complexity. One of them I noticed explicitly, among others in the bit I quoted from “The Cherry Orchard”, as a parallel to the antagonism in the outside world. Chekhov always makes these extensive stage directions, not just about what has to happen on the stage but also about how people are supposed to be feeling at that  precise moment – and which emotions actors are supposed to express. I tend to read over these, but very soon noticed that I shouldn’t. Reading them, I discovered that people often express CONTRADICTORY feelings. For example, saying rather funny or trivial things while they are crying. And – like people in real live! – they are saying one thing and are doing the opposite. And this opens some kind of gap where I begin to reach out for an explanation.  At the moment he is saying this, Lopakhin is exultant and  distressed AT THE SAME TIME. He is himself an example for the “mixed-up” state he is talking about. And this makes me QUESTION what he is saying. So - even though he should be! - he isn’t EXACTLY an example for the way “we” would want these lives to “hurry up and change”. Not even in his own mind.

  

And this is where I felt this striking parallel with my own historical situation – which is, of course, not one made of given facts but of interpretation. The way Chekhov put this, he expresses MY OWN experience of the antagonism. AT THAT MOMENT, I couldn’t help feeling that we were standing at this parallel “junction” in history - where everything that appeared relatively stable is about to change with lightning speed, whereas we – “mixed-up”, dull, lazy and miserable as we are – are unable to keep up, neither emotionally nor in our actions. If Lopakhin’s wish and vision were ever to come true, we would have to become DIFFERENT people. And how is this ever supposed to happen???