EMPEROR JONES - Eugene O'Neill

I'm going to start this blog with the bit I usually finish with. Could this play be performed in Goulburn today. In it's original form? Hell no!

The elephant in the room with Emperor Jones is the racial stereotyping and racist epithets. The N word is used heavily throughout this play. The main characters speaks in a way that today would be judged as depicting a cliched stereotype and there are a bunch of references to Jones' subjects as "black [inert insult here]."

So those are the impediments to doing the play today. Which is a pity, because it's a damn good play. And no I'm not excusing the language, or even condoning it in its contemporary context.

Because I'm a Eugene O'Neill novice, I've done a bit of research on the guy. It appears that far from being a racist, he created roles for black Americans and helped to increased their visibility in productions. Perhaps the language and characterisations he used in this script are aimed at being deliberately provocative? 

Anyway, that's jumping to the end bit. Let's go back a few steps.

The script

I bloody loved reading this. O'Neill, at least in this play, wrote voluminous stage directions and scene settings... possibly not something directors or actors may have loved but for a reader, it reads like a novel. And it's a short play, so a very quick "novel".

Brutus Jones, a convicted criminal, escapes from a road gang to a small Caribbean island. Utilising bluster and his skill as a con man,  he sets himself up as Emperor of the island imposing heavy taxes on the people. early in his period as Emperor, a villager tries to shoot him but the gun misfires, and Jones uses that to construct a mythology around himself that he can't be killed by anything less than a silver bullet. So that's the set up.

The play starts two years after Jones arrived on the island, and the natives are getting restless... sick of his regal excesses and heavy taxes. In scene one, a white cockney trader tells Jones to beware the ides of now, and that the islanders are ready for revolution. Scenes two to seven are Jones running through the jungle as the drum beat keeps getting louder, and then Smithers and others return for the final scene.

The thing I most enjoyed about this play is that it could easily have been a Twilight Zone episode. Similar to Scrooge in a Christmas Carol, he is visited by visions, or at least memories, of his past that spook him considerably. His reactions, you could even say guilt and regrets, from his past haunt him along his run through the jungle and his dialog works like one long stop-start monolog, the moral of which is you can't run away from your past.

Without giving too much away in spoilers, O'Neill foreshadows the ending with the early reveal of a pistol with six bullets one of them silver. Jones' past DOES catch up with him and superstition, which he weaponised for the natives, plays a large role in his undoing. These visions and the staging of them adds a surreal, expressionist quality to what would otherwise be a straightforward story.

The play is simple, unfettered, quickly engaging and easily followed... certainly moreso than the more complex works of Ibsen and Chekhov. That's not to say that makes it better or worse... if you like it or not, that's your own subjective judgement, but I liked the unconvoluted messaging.

Context is also important, and I know very little about the circumstances in which O'Neill wrote this, or about world politics back in 1920, apparently there is some linkage to the United States occupation of Haiti. But even without knowing that, it's themes clearly include commentary of imperialism, including cultural and economic imperialism, even if that's from the unusual angle of a minority perpetrator.

This was not O'Neill's first play (that was Beyond the Horizon for which he won the Pulitzer Prize for Drama) but it WAS his first big box-office hit and the story telling is so novel and interesting I'm not surprised.

Seeing it

There are very few version of this show available to see, and obviously the language has played a big part of that. There HAVE been theatrical revivals and even a few movie or video performances (including an Australian one) but they are harder to get your hands on than hen's teeth.

The movie version from 1933 is easily accessible on Youtube, and stars the enigmatic Paul Robeson (of Show Boat fame... and a very interesting individual if you have the time to read up on him). This version of the film details all of the back story that the play only alludes to in retrospect, so you're 40 minutes into the film before you get to the point the play starts at. O'Neill himself approved this adaptation and congratulated them on creating a three act story from a one act script. It shows, in a short time frame, Jones's deterioration and using pretty impressive editing techniques for its time, cleverly shows his ghostly delusions. 

This movie version does a pretty good job of telling the story but it is handy to know more than half of it is additional content created to pad the film out. Interestingly enough, the ebook version I bought on Amazon completely left out the entire last scene which is the climax of the whole play. It's handy to remember that books (and that includes scripts) that are out of their copyright protection can be reprinted by anyone and you don't always get the real deal. Fortunately I found a free copy online that only had a few pages extra, but those pages made a big differences.

Could it be performed it Goulburn - Part II

It's pretty unlikely it could be performed in it's original state. Frequent use of the N word and other derogatory descriptions preceded by the word Black would make it very hard to get off the ground as a production, or to perform without protest or sell tickets to. Maybe some productions get around this by a very specific warning about the content and context, but even then... it's a tough sell.

You could potentially modify the language... but it would need so much modification that at some point it may cease to be the original work. 

Those are choices for a production team. But it's themes - imperialism, power, guilt, racial identity, mistreatment of indigenous people and the poor - are still very much worth accessing and retelling. And the story telling techniques and surreality would still be very engaging and attractive. Would they still prove popular enough with local audiences? I'm certain they would. And whether it's ever performed in Goulburn or not, I'm very keen to encounter more of the works of Eugene O'Neill.

Materials accessed:

• "Emperor Jones" - (script) 1920. Available freely in many places - here's a link to it at the Public Library UK.
• "Emperor Jones" - (movie) 1933. Freely available at Youtube at this link. 

THE CHERRY ORCHARD - Anton Chekhov

When I studied history at school, we were taught a quote from Lord Macaulay... "Reform that ye may preserve." It was aimed at those in power preparing to share that power and privilege with the middle and lower classes because otherwise they were coming through and would take it anyway.

Bob Dylan said it slightly differently... "The times, they are a changin'."

That's a large part of The Cherry Orchard. As with all Chekhov works, there are a number of themes at play but I felt this one had a more identifiable and coherent central theme than "The Seagull," "Uncle Vanya" and "Three Sisters". 

The Story

Madame Lyubov Ranyevskaya, a popular member of the aristocracy, returns to her old prestigious home, famed for it's glorious Cherry Orchard,  after a time in Paris and it appears that both she and her property have fallen on hard times. With her are her biological daughter Anya (who travelled with her) and adopted daughter Varya who has stayed behind to manage the estate. Lyubov's brother Gayev also resides at the family property. 

In addition to these family members, Lopahkin, a recently established member of the middle class whose dad had been a peasant and his grandfather a serf. While mostly a charming man, he wants to make the point that he has arrived and the old regime are on the way out. There's also Boris, a bit of a wasted caricature of a faded aristocrat,  Trofimov (my favourite) a rising leftie advocating for reform, maid Dunyasha, manservants Firs (quite old) and Yasha (quite young), as well as Yepikhodov, Charlotta and others.

For Lyubov. returning to the estate is emotionally challenging... it's the place where her son died and it's tough just seeing how much it has deteriorated. Lopahkin has a solution. Sell the property (which is mortgaged for more than Lyubov can realistically pay). Let him take the property and take over. But (and he is very deliberate about this) he will destroy the Cherry Orchard.

There are a lot of characters in this play (not that numbers are a problem... see also Vox Populi) but some of them seem redundant to the story, so I'll drill down to just a few and try to avoid too many spoilers. Lopahkin represents the new middle class wave coming through. Lyubov represents the fading aristocratic regime, and Trofimov represents the under class fighting to be understood and represented.

While much of the thematic content is rehashed form his previous works, I think Chekhov does a far better job of delineating the central thrust of this story and does so in a more engaging way. No longer just a wistful reverie of how the idle wealthy suffer with their lack of purpose, more than in his other works this play emotionally connects us to Lyubov and her sense of loss for the changes to her world, for the touchstone to her past and memories to move into someone else's hands, and more broadly the changes the world is experiencing. She seems to make a conscious choice to live in denial about the changing world, to not prepare for the changes, and to seem shocked when the inevitable finally arrives. 

While the lack of financial and managerial acumen by Lyubov and her brother Gayev hasn't helped the situation, it shows that Lopahkin's possession of these traits has considerably helped his attempt to wrest control of the property away from the family. And even though he attempts to appear somewhat helpful in trying to get them to buy into his ideas, his genuine agenda and motivation to avenge his lowly origins and seize control are revealed as he essentially betrays the family financially. The aristocratic regime having to move aside for another regime in the form of the middle class, and his axing of the trees is a meaningful analogy for taking an axe to the structure of society.

And all the time, Trofimov is the idealist and advocate for the working class and the new world coming through. Chekhov gives him plenty of space to articulate the alternatives and possibilities waiting to be ushered in at the dawn of the 20th century.

My thoughts

I think that maybe... MAYBE... I'm starting to figure out what Chekhov was trying to do that I have been struggling to grasp until now.

Of course being a Chekhov play, there are lots of extraneous folk with half-mentioned motivations and sub-plots that are never fully fleshed out - but I'm beginning to think that's what he was shooting for. I think he wanted ALL characters to be three dimensional, to have layers and back stories and not just be NPCs that offer plot device value. And that's very consistent to theatre realism of which he was an advocate and devotee.

That's kind of ironic since the thrust of the Chekhov's Gun theory is that all elements presented in a story or play should be included purposefully, with no red herrings or wasted intricacy. And yes, there is an actual gun in this play... of course... although it plays almost no role in the story.

Having said that, I'm not sure the depth of unrealised character details in some of his other works aided those works, nor for that matter the multiple competing but unelevating themes. But in THIS work, the characters, the characterisations, and the stripping back of dead end plots and themes serve a much more united, cohesive and as a result powerful story.

The character choices and descriptions in "The Cherry Orchard" are quite individual and fresh. The combination of comic and tragic elements and overall unity of message made this, from my subjective view, his greatest work (of the four I've encountered). It has been referred to by many as one of the masterpieces of theatre... I think maybe I could buy into that too but I'm not quite there yet and would need to study it, or review it, or just see it a few more times to be sure.

I still had some notes. I'd like to have understood better the significance of the two daughters, and why one was biological and one adopted, and why those choices were made. Gayev is intriguing and funny and could have done with more focus, and to a lesser degree, same with Yephikodov, Yasha and Firs. In a mini series, their roles might make more sense but being a play, I felt several could be cut completely with no loss to the story. I'd especially cut Charlotta and Boris who added very little to the piece. I know the latter is meant to add to the aristocratic angle but he didn't add much for me.

But that's the nit-picking done. This is a far easier play to get your head around than the three other Chekhov plays I have reviewed. For a start, it's easier to summarise in a logline. The use of imagery in the title is quite well linked to the story... the simplicity of the family's cherry orchard, now fallen on bad times and not quite so breath-taking as it was, and with it's produce, cherries, no longer in demand... emphasising both times gone by and coming changes. And the incorporation of comedy and farce added a better balance of light and shade, barely present in the other three works of his I've mentioned, drawing focus to the more dramatic elements and themes as they come and making for a more enjoyable theatrical experience over all.

The versions I've seen

I attempted to watch two versions of this to supplement the readings.

The first was the 1999 film with Charlotte Rampling in the lead role, with Michael Gough, a very young Gerard Butler, Melanie Lynskey and Xander Berkley in other roles. I've sat through some hard to watch films in my time, particularly since watching some of the movie adaptations of the great plays, but as God is my witness i just couldn't finish this. Directed and adapted by Michael Cacoyannis, it is a far better alternative to valerian root or melatonin if you need to fall asleep quickly. I had three goes at this but couldn't hang in there.

The second attempt was a National Theatre pro-shot from 2011. I found this much more digestible and enjoyable. Starring Zoe Wannamaker is Lyubov and a stack of other British theatre regulars (including Mark Bonnar - you may have seen him in Shetlands - as Trofimov), this version was adapted by Australia's own Andrew Upton (Cate Blanchett's other half) and the changes to the script are more a case of clever pruning and re-centering. I found it very enjoyable, if a little long (3 hours 5 mins).

Some of the intrusions by the less significant characters got in the way, and I thought some of Lyubov's running around like a headless chook while saying "look at me, I'm running around" were distracting. I did however very much like the last scene, featuring Firs, which I think symbolically marked the passing of the old ways.

My thoughts

I liked it. I think it's a bit like you have to get into Shakespearian headspace to watch and consider Shakespearian plays, I found I had to get into a Chekhovian space, informed by having experienced some of his other works.

There was less of the pressing ennui of wasted lives, the inertia about wanting to do something but not doing it, no sub-plots of cheating and only a little bit of unrequited love. I feel that, in not trying to do so much in "The Cherry Orchard" he made it stronger. And better. 

This is easily my favourite of the four Chekhov plays I've covered (followed by "The Seagull", "Uncle Vanya" and "Three Sisters") and I could definitely see it being produced locally. For it to succeed, I think it would help if it was even further adapted, Andrew Upton style, to debride some of the dead and damaged tissue or to find ways to shift focus to the key contributing elements. And I'm not a fan of fiddling with the playwright's words however translated adaptations offer some possibilities.

But overall, I can see why the woks of Chekhov are highly regarded as changing the realistic content of plays. With 120ish years of hindsight and my own personal biases there were some that I approached differently to Anton, but I can clearly see the influence he had on modern theatre and how his work was necessary for those that followed to follow.

But I have to be honest and say I found several of his plays to be hard work, hard to engage with and not especially moving or enjoyable. Again, Sometimes it comes down to seeing the right performance to change your mind and, for the ones I wasn't especially fond of,  I look forward to that happening.

Materials accessed:

• "The Cherry Orchard" - script. many free copies online, here's one at the Oxford Theatre Guild.
• "The Cherry Orchard" - movie (1999). Free on Youtube.
• "National Theatre Live: The Cherry Orchard" - pro-shot film (2011). Available  on subscription to National Theatre at Home.

THREE SISTERS - Anton Chekhov

 

As my journey through some of the Great Plays of all time continues, I am becoming increasingly aware of the role of taste. And obviously it’s not something restricted to the theatre. For everyone sitting down for a night of watching the Godfather, someone else is watching Happy Gilmore. For everyone looking forward to a night on the cans, someone else is anticipating a quiet night with a pinot noir. And none of that is to imply an innate sense of worthiness to these choices. Your favourite ice cream might be chocolate, or strawberry… or licorice. Dealers choice.

And none of that paragraph relates specifically to “Three Sisters” except as a way of flagging that to date Chekhov’s work has not grabbed me as I hoped it would. And so, as a disclaimer, now that I have a slightly better experiential catalog of Chekhov’s plays behind me and offering the same apologies for my own personal tastes and possible insufficiencies… I’m still not there with Chekhov yet.

There’s a TV sitcom I’m very fond of, “Seinfeld”, which has been described, even by its own creators as “the show about nothing.” The show was very much situational and, especially in earlier episodes, not super big on dramatic plot points. But very funny nonetheless.

It’s a criticism that some (like I) might level at some Chekhov plays… and again, no doubt that statement is in some way a reflection of my tastes and capacities). I really did enjoy some of the philosophical musings expressed in some very clever pieces of dialog. But (and this may be a product of my available time), but finishing this play was a bit of a punish I find it hard to complete and I wasn’t overly motivated to doing so. Also the version I saw was pretty bloody flat despite some pretty handy actors.

But I don’t want to be guilty of shit-canning this play just because I didn’t enjoy it all that much. I know that all of Chekhov’s works are revered, widely enjoyed and performed with impressive regularity to this day and so, even though very few people will read this blog, I feel a duty to treat this play with the respect time and overwhelming popularity have earned it. So here goes.

What it’s about

Would it shock you to know that the story is about three sisters? Thought not. And there’s a brother two, suffering from the same referencing marginalisation experienced by Dumas fourth musketeer, D’Artagnan. There are also a bunch of soldiers and other men and women in key roles, and a few extras for good measure.

Written and set as the 18th century was giving way to the 19th, the play is set against the backdrop of changes that are coming. Sisters Irina (youngest), Masha (ironically the Jan Brady of the bunch) and Olga (the eldest), along with brother Andrei used to live in Moscow. They have been living a tree change for the last 11 years but long to return.

Olga is a spinster, headmistress and matriarch/acting mother figure of the brood. Masha, the middle child, is married to latin-teaching Kulgiyn but is afflicted with the seven year itch (literally) and falls for and has an affair with Lt Colonel Vershinin (and she’s not the only one cheating around). Youngest sister Irina isn’t in love with anyone but when she realises they aren’t going back to Moscow, agrees to marry Baron Tuzenbach but in a twist… nope I’ll let you discover what happens there.

And brother Andrei, adored by his sisters, is a good, decent and worthy chap, bogged down by indecision. He marries the seemingly shy and quiet Natasha (who his sisters don’t like) but boy does she show here true colours as the story continues.

There’s also Solyony (the nutcase), old Dr Chebutykin, soldier and amateur photographer Fedotik, another soldier called Rode, Anfisa the aged house maid (treated well by the girls but not so much by Natasha) and Ferepont, another aged character, who chimes in with random comments.

And in reading that, I have to admit I LIKE those bones. That’s a well constructed cast of characters, with lots of opportunity for story telling. But I’ll come back to that.

The Themes

I guess we all relive past mistakes, recurring flaws and favoured highlights a bit. That’s definitely true for Chekhov. Many of the same themes and plot ideas show up again that are present in “The Seagull” and “Uncle Vanya.” As a fan of the whole Rocky franchise (well not Rocky V… that one was poo) I can appreciate the subtle and even obvious reuse of story ideas, but I think when you didn’t love it the first time around, the impact of repetition hits differently.

“Three Sisters” (and the other Chehov’s I’ve read and witness) are a bit uneventful and I appreciate that’s the appeal for some. But I felt that the ongoing introspection and navel gazing, used to the degree it is, takes a toll. I appreciate contemplation as much as the next guy. Maybe moreso. But I think the existential ennui has been covered. Asked and answered, your honour. Move along.

The tone is also stuck in some mid-tone plateau. Neither dramatic, nor funny, nor sad, nor aggravating, nor evocative. I have also seen and enjoyed lots of tragic and sad plays, often operating with a degree of light and shade, but I felt this didn’t grab my heart and break it so much as suffocate it like a heavy cloud of pervasive pessimism. Again, nothing wrong with bringing the darker and more  complex emotions… all a matter of taste. And like a cake, I see the flour, sugar and eggs, I possibly didn’t go for the specific mix.

Another of Chekhov’s go-tos, unrequited love, takes a central role again, paired with unfaithfulness in marriage and relationships. Both come up so often in Chekhov plays that I kind of feeling like taking the good playwright aside and saying “Anton… Tony… mate. If I could have a quick word. How’s things at home?” But anyway, here they are again. And not just once. And a gun, of course, with a significant plot point of its own (albeit offstage)

Other recurring themes… the monotony and lack of fulfillment of middle class provincial life is front and centre again. Also the unbearable heaviness of being, what have I done with my life and what is there left I could do, the loss of prestige.

On the stage (or at least on screen)

The only copy I could find of this is from that wonderful storehouse of the great plays “BBC Play of The Month” - a “show” that ran from 1965 to 1983 (literally the year I was born until the year I completed Year 12… but it’s not about me!). This series covered 121 plays in full, including MANY of the greatest plays of all time, and one of those was “Three Sisters”.

This version featured a few actors I’d seen before… a very young Anthony Hopkins, Joss Ackland (the Diplomatic Immunity guy from “Lethal Weapon”), Michele Dotrice (the wife from “Some Mothers do Ave em”) and Janet Suzman. 

The BBC has kicked many goals in this space but this play fell very flat and maybe that has biased my enjoyment? I really had to push myself over several sittings to finish this. And now it sounds like I’m calling this performance bad. I just don’t think it delivered particularly well at some key moments and on some key lines. But it’s available on Youtube, so judge for yourself. 

As with a few plays/movies I’ve seen for this project (particularly Ibsen’s “Hedda Gabler”) early impressions changed dramatically thanks to one sensational performance. It could very be that a combination of a strong version of this and my growing familiarity with the script and characters will turn my opinion around considerable.

Last bits

If I saw this as my first Chekhov, and not my third, I may have enjoyed it more. The repetitiveness of central themes didn’t give me the “well that’s new” hit that I was hoping for.

I liked many bits of dialogs, particularly some relating to how we don’t get to be happy now, that’s for future generations, although some times I wanted to yell out “For the love of God, the lower classes are REALLY struggling around you and mostly your lives aren’t too bad. Please, SOMEONE, appreciate that.”

I got frustrated by the inertia and self-imposed lack of agency of the characters, a lack of willingness to change their situations, but I get that that was the very thing Chekhov was trying to show. I think.

The play wraps up clearly. The time comes for closing books and long last looks must end (To Sergei, with Love?) but I thought the end message, though a consistent and succinct rendering of a key theme, was a bit morose and limited. What’s there to live for? Nothing. It’s also a bit like the end of “Uncle Vanya” although in that Sonya imbued it with a bit of nobility. Here, I felt Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre would have exchanged knowing smiles and added “HE gets it.”

I think I’m being a bit harsh, but I really didn’t love it. Again, I think my appreciation of this will grow with further encounters with the play. But I’m not quite there yet.

Materials accessed:

• “Three Sisters” - script. (1900). Accessible many places for free, here’s one from Amazon Web Sevices.
• “Three Sisters” - video (1970). BBC Play of the Month available on Youtube.

UNCLE VANYA - Anton Chekhov

I think I'm starting to get the vibe of Chekhov plays. It's taking me a while but I'm getting there.

There are a lot of juicy ingredients in "Uncle Vanya", and many of these are as recognisable to contemporary Aussies as they would have been to Russians 127 years ago. And a quick aside, the play's FULL title is/was "Uncle Vanya: Scenes from Country Life" which not only tells you who it's about, but also where it's been set which double as a central theme. That's quite efficient and economical naming. But to the play...

Like many family gatherings, including the Christmas (or Festivus) parties that many of us may have recently experienced, "Uncle Vanya"  features the airing of grievances and long harboured regrets, loneliness and isolation, the point of life, contemplations and reflections and assessments of wasted lives and unclear futures. And, as with "The Seagull", quite a bit of unrequited love.

In fact there are already, from my admittedly small sample of two plays, some recurring themes developing amongst Chekhov's works. Like "The Seagull" and quite possible other works that I haven't encountered yet. There is quite a bit of examination of the point of existence and happiness, a healthy dollop of middle class provincial ennui focussed on their personal struggles, in each there is a significant and revered senior outsider male that many respect and others resent for the same reason, hints of suicide. And a gun! Again! And, also like "The Seagull", this is set in a bucolic country setting where the characters are brought together. 

But for all the the similarities, this is nonetheless a very different play. So let's have a look at it.

The story

At the country property are a number of regulars, and several visitors. Among the regulars are Ivan, affectionately known as Vanya, who lives on the property with his niece Sonya and his mum ... both also present; the itinerant guest "Waffles" and Vanya's closest friend, Astrov (a Doctor). Joining them are Aleksandr (esteemed former University professor and former husband of Vanya's deceased sister), and Aleksandr's new, young and beautiful (so described in the script) wife Yelena. And a few other characters besides.

There are pre-existing tensions before we meet Vanya and Co. Inheriting his deceased wife's share of the property, the Professor has been living off the income it has provided, earned on backs of the efforts of Vanya and his daughter, Sonya. While Vanya's widowed mum Maria dotes on the professor (her former son in law) and is freely disappointed in Vanya, Vanya has a different appreciation of the Professor, seeing him as over-rated and something of a sponge. Astrov also could care less either way.

I mentioned unrequited loves... both Vanya and Astrov both hold a torch for Yelena despite the fact she is married to the Professor. Sonya meanwhile has strong feelings for Astrov. Sonya, who is described as plain in the script - Chekhov's words not mine - also feels jealous of and inferior to the gorgeous Yelena (it's ok, they become friends).

There are a LOT of conversations in this play, conversations that mostly fit broadly into the category of deep-and-meaningful diads, ruminating on the meaning of life, looking back on what's been and ahead to what's to come.

Vanya reflects industriousness versus idleness - the work he and Sonya have put into keeping the property running versus the idleness of the Professor and others. He reflects on his unrealised ambitions as a writer and desire for Yelena. 

Astrov, an early proto-green warrior, considers the environment versus industry, unfulfilled love and disillusionment with provincial life. He also offers a very Harry-Met-Sally-esque observation about how many and women can't be friends.

Sonya struggles with feeling insignificant. Yelena struggles with a growingly meaningless marriage.

"Uncle Vanya" is nothing if not contemplative.

As performed

While most of the plays I've looked at so far have improved from seeing them on stage, this may be the first exception to that rule (for me personally). I think I preferred the written script.

I found a 1991 filmed version, adapted by David Mamet no less. It featured Ian Holms (dam he's good), Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio and David Warner (the British Actor, and not the former Australian opening bat). Warner, as Vanya, was ok, but didn't stand out for me. The entire cast was fine, and I thought Ian Holm as Astrov was exceptional (maybe one of his best works) as was Rebecca Pidgeon, who I'd not been aware of, as Sonya. Her scenes with Ian Holm were the most engaging and her final speech, which not only concludes the play but also nicely summarises a central stiff-upper-lip resilience theme quite well. And yet this production didn't grab me.

One version I really wanted to see but it is the 2020 version I could only find on Marquee TV. But since I'm fairly well over-committed to theatrical streamers with Digital Theatre, and National Theater at Home, I thought I should probably draw the line somewhere. But it features Toby Jones, Richard Armitage, Roger Allam and Aimee Lou Wood so I'm very keen to see tit.

Speaking of National Theatre at Home, I DID see another very modified version called simply "Vanya". In it, the the super-versatile Andrew Scott playing ALL the roles. Calling it a marathon isn't all that outrageous, as it ran longer than the world record for running a marathon. His ability to retain so much dialog, to deliver it differentiated characters (subtle vocal changes, changes in how he carried and comported himself and the odd prop like a tea towel, a cigarette and sun glasses). Clever dialog, and even a great subtle jibe about how one character had mostly only written adaptations, and quite a spectacle. It really was something to see and I'm glad I did. A singular performance by Scott but I don't think it did a great job of explicating or improving the characterisations and themes shown in other versions.

And there are still other versions. Some of which are:

• "Uncle Vanya" (1970) - a BBC Play of the Month with Anthony Hopkins as Astrov.
• "Country Life" (1994) - an Aussie version set in the outback with Sam Neill and Greta Scacchi.
• "Vanya on 42nd Street" (1994) - another David Mamet version, this time set in America and featuring Wallace Shawn and Julianne Moore.
• "August" (1996) - a version set in Wales with Anthony Hopkins this time playing Vanya.

Final bits

To be honest (and I feel guilty saying this again after "The Seagull" and how they are revered greats and no doubts the fault is in MY stars etc), the play itself doesn't grab me all that much. Again. I feel that multiple iterations does improve my enjoyment of Chekhov so far as I enjoy it more once I understand it.

I DID really enjoy reading the dialog, lots of clever phrasing and philosophising. And some very early ecological, green messaging. I'm starting to think that Chekhov, who also excelled as a writer in other forms (including short stories) and who was a contemporary of Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, may be best appreciated through the prism of his words more than his creation of a staged work? Just a thought.

But I did appreciate it, the more I worked at it. It contains powerful speeches, some thematic discussions that are still timely... and the fact that it remains, like Chekhov's other works, so popular and so frequently produced as a measure of it's quality, my personal taste and limitations notwithstanding.

Materials accessed:

• "Uncle Vanya" - script (1896). Many versions online, here's a link to Project Gutenberg.
• "Uncle Vanya" - movie (1991). Movie on Youtube.
• "Vanya" - pro-shot video. Available by subscription on National Theatre at Home.

THE SEAGULL - Anton Chekhov

In my family, particularly by my youngest son Bobby, the expression “Chekhov’s Gun” gets quite a bit of a workout. It relates to a narrative principle espoused by Anton Chekhov that every element in a story must be necessary and have a good reason to being incorporated into the story. That is, if there’s a gun on the mantelpiece in Act 1, someone better be shot by the final act.

That’s been modified at our place, so that when a seemingly insignificant detail gets mentioned early in a movie or TV episode, you’ll here him (and sometimes the rest of us) predict… “Chekhov’s guitar string”, “Chekhov’s muesli wrapper,” … Chekhov’s narwal” etc.

And of course, quite aside from that, he is revered as one of the great writers and along with Ibsen one of the fathers of theatre realism. So I approached the next four plays, the four Chekhov plays I’m looking at, with a mix of interest, trepidation and curiosity. Will I like his work? Will I understand his work? Will I understand the hype? Will each play contain a Chekhov’s gun”? Let’s find out.

One of the hallmarks of the realism movement in theatre was to replicate the mundanity of real life. Not to bore people out of the theatres, but to bring people’s real-life, every-day experiences onto the stage. It was a necessary and transformative movement. 

One could argue it is still recognisable in conversations between Tarantino characters in “Reservoir Dogs” and “Pulp Fiction” where characters that might otherwise have been two dimensional bad guys, have mundane but realistic discussions… what is Madonna really saying when she says she felt like a virgin, is Superman or Batman really the most heroic character, is the Royale with Cheese really the same as a quarter pounder? 

Not the best example of realism perhaps, but it hits on the significance of low stakes, verisimilitude somewhat distant from the heroics of Gods and Kings. It’s one aspect of Chekhov’s work that he shoots for - realistic conversations that are similar to ones you have experienced and that sense of being a fly on the wall - and scores. 

The Story

My first reaction after reading this was, I’m going to need to see this. My first reaction after seeing this (and I watched two versions) was, I’m going to need to draw a character map of who’s who. There’s quite a few characters of significance in this play. It’s a bit detailed and you can lose track if you aren’t paying attention (guilty as charged, apparently).

The first plot point that stood out for me was unrequited love and love triangles. MANY triangles. More triangles than a kindergarten band, although thankfully no recorders (sorry Miffy, if you’re reading this). And while I’m not going to summarise in explicit detail the entire plot, here is a picture of just the love details:

• Medvedenko loves Masha unrequitedly. 

• Masha loves Konstantin unrequitedly, but settles for Medvedenko anyway. 

• Konstantin loves Nina unrequitedly. 

• Nina loves Boris. 

• Boris is in a relationship with Konstantin’s mum, Irina, but hooks up with her anyway. 

• Meanwhile Masha’s mum Polina, who is married to Masha’s dad Ilya, is having it off with Dorn, the doctor. 

I feel a bit grubby reducing such a literary classic to “Love Island”, but it’s fair to say there’s a bit going on here. And while it is not likely the main theme Chekhov was trying to make, it’s not nothing.

A slightly better story setup… Irina is a famed actress. Her lover is a famed playwright (that’s actually a thing?). Her son Konstantin is a budding, would-be playwright and the girl he likes, Nina, is a budding, would-be actress. They are staying at a rural property by a lake with Irina’s older brother (Sorin). Present are also the property’s caretaker (Ilya), his wife (Polina) and their daughter (Masha). There’s also a doctor (Dorn) and a teacher (Medvedenko).

Konstantin puts on a play within the play which is quite avante garde and symbolistic and all a bit hard to follow for most (except the Doctor), and so his mum tells him as much. Konstantin believes the quite popular stuff his mother performs in is tired, safe and boring and he begins to detest his mum’s famous playwright paramour. 

Moving his thought to love, rather than showing his love with flowers, Konstantin gives Nina, the girl he is infatuated with, a Seagull he shot. Hmmm. Nina meanwhile dreams of the spotlights but also feels very much at home by the lake where Boris likens her to that seagull that he said was, in a possible story idea, destroyed purely out of boredom. 

There’s a lot more. Essentially the unrequited relationships and unrealised dreams fester amongst this small group. There is a two year time jump in the story and this gives the characters further opportunity to consider paths followed and roads not taken. There is some regret, some forgiveness, some willingness to overlook the past, and some unresolved sadness.

And yes (slight spoiler), Chekhov’s gun is literally used. 

Storytelling and themes

I found this a more complex work than any of the Ibsen plays I read. And it’s all subjective… complex according to who? Well, complex for me and that may well be a measure of my simple theatrical palate. 

It’s also not a criticism. This is quite a clever piece and I enjoyed pitting myself against it and trying to absorb it all. I don’t tend to think of myself as particularly dopey when it comes to literature, but I did struggle a bit here. I think that maybe the multitude of significant themes, overlaid against a multitude of different fleshed out relationships may have stretched me a little. It’s fair to say that it’s a piece of literature dense with detail. Of course, you could argue that theatre should be more immediate and not need such investigation, or being “pitted against it.” and you may be right.

Chekhov (again at least in this play) is very adept at exposing foibles, displaying people and things and people and their dialog as it is, without moral judgement or the need for gotcha consequences to every revealed flaw. There are some easter egg connections to Hamlet (both with the play within the play and in the son displeased that his mother has replaced his dad) and overall I felt there is a subtlety in his movement from plot point to plot point or resolution.

In some of Ibsen’s work I didn’t love how some plot points moved from one to another in an unearned way… foreshadowing followed by instant reveal. Not always, just sometimes. But in “The Seagull” I didn’t find huge ‘behind you’ alerts. There are many overlapping plots and subplots, many of which further emphasising the key themes, but the language and the experiences of the characters rang true. 

I particularly liked the ongoing evolution of The Seagull imagery… first that Nina is like a Seagull drawn to new life and adventure, then that Konstantin shoots a Seagull as a tone deaf gift, then Boris likening that to someone disposing of a Seagull after having no further use for it, then Boris doing that same thing to Nina. That seemed quite layered and I missed it completely when I read the script on its own.

Themes that I felt were the cockiness of the experienced and safe ways, the enthusiasm and uncertainty of new ways, generational misunderstanding, commercialism versus art, the want of things you don’t have, the lack of appreciation of the things you do, dreams and ambitions (including those that don’t eventuate). Obviously, unrequited love is a feature. And there’s probably more than I didn’t get or that hasn’t stuck with me.

Seeing is believing

Like all the plays I’ve read so far (and I realise at some point the more modern and particularly the Australian plays I won’t be able to find video of… but that’s tomorrow’s problem), I found versions of this to watch. 

Sometime last year I saw an entirely updated and rewritten 2022 version on National Theatre at Home. And I didn’t understand any of it at the time. So I’ll come back to that.

I hired on Prime Video (about $5) the 2018 film starring Annette Bening. Shot against a sumptuous countryside witha  real lake and everything, this helped incredibly with piecing together the Who’s Who at the Zoo, which in turn helped also with the understanding of the play. It had benefited from a talented all star cast (including Saoirse Ronan, Corey Stoll, Elisabeth Moss, Mare Winningham, Brian Dennehy among others I was less familiar with) and was more engrossing that I thought it would be based on the script and my previous viewing of the 2020 version. The story was quite linear, clear and easy to follow and their portrayals brought out the characters, the feelings and motivations and the themes quite well.

So I ducked back and had another look at the incredibly different 2022 pro-shot version. Again, an amazing cast (among the actors I was familiar with were Indira Varma, Emilia Clarke, Daniel Monks  and one of my favourite pommy actors, Robert Glenister. 

So many aspects were different to both the written script and the 2018 film (and, I assume, many other films and productions). The stage is completely bare and with all actors on stage the entire time, dragging their seats forward to signify they are in a scene, and moving them around to be out. The dialog is entirely different, totally updated to contemporary British vernacular.. In fact several different British vernaculars (particularly liked Jason Bennet as a right proper geezer, innit), and there is mention of cinemas, digital technology and a bit of swearing not in the original.

I quite enjoyed it the second time around. I think if you’re new to it (as was I the first time) it doesn’t do a great job of connecting you to Chekhov’s original piece, and while the refurbished dialog adds to the realism, the lack of setting and realistic activities (such as the lotto game) reduces that a bit. But all of the themes and interactions are all there, and maybe all the stronger for the modernisation.

Last bits

There’s no disputing that this is a detailed, clever, layered play… one of the great plays. Like Ibsen, it also gave an opportunity for female leads which was at the time outside of the norm. It gave people realistic every day (albeit middle class) conversations and settings that were to some degree recognisable and dealt with themes that resonated with its audience at that tim and space, and ever since.

It’s a play that great actors have made a congo line towards, wanting to give it a crack and have their own spin on this piece of work.

My only disclaimer, and this is almost certainly a flaw in me, the complexity of the piece made it tough for me to drag away a simple summary of what it’s about. It’s about lots of things and is meant to be, but (and I’m learning as I go) I think I prefer a show to impact on me more quickly and maybe have fewer balls in the air. 

It reminded me of jazz music, which I appreciate but am not very much into. Jazz fans and musicians can listen to it and think “ah, E#m, that was a clever choice. I see what you did there.” It’s great that that cleverness is appreciable, but I feel in the first encounter I missed a lot when I was hoping to be instantly moved. But... the point of this project is to encounter great works, and be challenged. So that's two ticks for "The Seagull.".

In some ways, I feel like a novice hitting the big leagues. Any lack of getting it or appreciating it instantly are flaws on my part. I enjoyed it each time I saw it and I think now that I understand it better and know what I’m seeing, I’ll enjoy it more if I see it again. Would it work in Goulburn? Again, anything could… we have incredible actors, directors and creatives. I think I’d like to see something that took the updated textual approach of the 2022 pro-shot version (sign me up, willing directors), but retaining a lot more visual queues to guide and deepen the experience.

 A great work.

Materials accessed:

• "The Seagull" - script. Available many places, here is a free option from Project Gutenberg.
• "The Seagull" - movie (2018). Available for hire on Prime Video.
• "The Seagull" - pro-shot video (2022). Available by subscription on National Theatre at Home.

HEDDA GABLER - Henrik Ibsen

One of the things I liked about this play, even before I read it or saw it, was the title.

Even if you knew nothing about the content of Ibsen’s plays going into them, and that was true for me, you might conceivably be able to have a stab in the dark at what they might be about from the title. 

You probably wouldn’t be able to guess much, because they are complex works, but in retrospect the titles of “A Doll’s House,” “Ghosts” and “The Wild Duck” are quite symbolic of the themes and content within, and “An Enemy of the People” is even more straightforward.

But with Hedda Gabler (and the last name is apparently pronounced Garbler if a whole bunch of actors are to be relied upon) I had nothing. Nada… ikke noe (in Norwegian)… intet (Danish).

It’s a woman’s name? Maybe? So the play strong features a woman called Hedda Gabler, obviously. Bomp Bow! Close. Her name is actually Hedda Tesman… her MAIDEN name had been Hedda Gabler. But even that choice of title gives a meaningful heads up that this is a woman feeling trapped, diminished and controlled and not satisfied with the life she now leads.

I’m not sure if summarising some of Ibsen’s other pieces in my previous blogs has been useful (you can learn most of it from Wikipedia) but I’m not going to be as detailed this time. There’ll be spoilers still, but there’s so much good stuff to encounter in this play I want to leave a lot of it for you to discover.

I will start with this… I think Hedda Gabler is the stand out play of the five Ibsen plays I’ve read and watched. I liked all of them (well not so much “The Wild Duck”) but this one I feel is much more cohesive, largely the reveals and plot elements are better constructed and earned, and it’s an amazing piece of theatre particularly for the person (may not be someone who identifies as a woman) who finds themselves in the lead role.

As an aside, “Hedda Gabler” has a reputation in theatrical circles as being the female “Hamlet”. The plays of course are very different. At the very least, this is far shorter… not even half as long. And the roles are very different, the storyline very different, but each involves a very flawed lead character and this role is a standout (and a particularly brave role to write form women in theatre at its time) and so it’s unsurprising that many great and/or famous actresses have played the title role. A very abbreviated list of just some of those actresses includes:

Ingrid Bergmann, Peggy Ashcrodt, Janet Suzman, Diana Rigg, Glenda Jackson, Claire Bloom, Kate Mulgrew, Maggie Smith, Jane Fonda, Annette Bening, Judy Davis, Emmanuelle Seigner, Mary Louise Parker, Rosamund Pike, Ruth Wilson, Cate Blanchett and Tessa Thompson.

So what’s it about

Hedda Gabler is a woman stuck in a life, a house and a relationship she doesn’t want to be in. She dreams of greater wealth, luxury and position, but she is no mere tag-along Lady Macbeth. She refuses to be a victim and displays her agency at every opportunity.

She is, in turn, enigmatic, domineering, vulnerable, manipulative, spiteful and fragile. And in at least one production I watched there is quite a hint that she is battling with her mental health.

As the play starts, she is newly married and already over it. She longs for adventure, misses the prestige of being General Gabler’s daughter, and with having significant influence in life. Out of a mix of boredom, curiosity, vindictiveness and opportunity, she is more than happy to use her influence on those in her immediate proximity, mostly at their detriment.

She insults her husband George’s close Aunt out of petty vindictiveness, toys with and tortures (figuratively speaking) an old schoolmate just for sport, and flirts with two potential love interests to satisfy her ego, setting up antagonisms and conflicts as she goes.

Plot elements include her husband (George Tesman) and an old friend of his (Eilert Lovborg) who now compete for the same position, an unscrupulous family friend (Judge Brack) who has assisted the family in the past but no seeks to control Hedda. There’s an old schoolfriend of Hedda’s (Thea Elvsted), who doesn’t remember it being all that friendly and whose presence and love interests taunt Hedda, there’s a maid (Berte) that hedda has little time for and and the Aunt (Juliana Tesman) who played a large part in raising George and whom Hedda has even less time for.

Henrik Ibsen’s Greatest Hits

Hnbrik Ibsen was way ahead of the recycling and sustainability trend, reusing plot elements a number of times. I’m not having a shot at him (although guns come up a bit). In fact I am a huge fan of songwriter Jim Steinman who has been known to cut and paste entire songs and reuse them (check out Bad for Good and Nowhere Fast and get back to me). And for both writers that’s fine.. It’s their own original work after all and they can do what they like.

I really don’t want to spoil this play for newcomers, but I can say that some of Ibsen’s greatest hits are in the mix. Again, not all of these elements are in “Hedda Gabler” but some trademark Ibsen faves I’ve encountered in the five plays I’ve read or watched include:

• Most of the lead characters HAVE servants rather than ARE servants. Four plays. (Understandable that a middle-class raised Ibsen wrote about life experiences).

• Suicide of a key character very near the end of the book as an emphatic moral to the story. Two plays (and a third one, an assisted suicide).

• A child born out of wedlock whose true parentage (someone the audience has already met) is revealed near the end as a plot twist. Two plays.

• A woman leaving her husband and her children. Two plays.

Again, not saying what elements are used in “Hedda Gabler”, but I found that their use, and the user of other previously unused elements, was more effective, better scripted and better earned in this chronologically fifth of the five plays I’ve looked at.

The Play is the Thing

I liked the play from reading it, and that’s not always easy because some days your imagination and interest don’t want to come and play, but on this occasion the planet aligned. And I would have praised the play based just on that. But watching the ting come together can be a wholly more resounding experience.

As with “The Wild Duck,” I watched three different movies/videos of the play, although with that play I was hoping to see just one that I liked whereas with “Hedda Gabler” I was enjoying each so much I wanted more.

Because it’s been performed, and recorded, so often, I was spoiled for choice and so I went with options that featured actresses I really wanted to see.

The 1962 BBC Telemovie featured Ingrid Bergmann, just one of the greatest actresses of all time (personal bias… feel free to have your own opinions), along with Michael Redgrave, Trevor Howard and others. Very enjoyable… Ingrid has such almost royal presence and played the role quite aristocratically. She was still able to give indications of cruelty while seeming dignified and aloof, and Trevor Howard as the Judge was quite sinsiter when his moment arrives. Well worth a watch.

The 1981 ITV Telemovie featured Diana Rigg (who played opposite Goulburn’s own George Lazenby in “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, the very sexy Emma Peel in the British Avengers (go write your own blog if you don’t like my descriptions) and also a quite majestic role in Game of Thrones… so I wasn’t going to skip this version. Diana Rigg played the role not dissimilarly to Ingrid Bergmann although seemed to always have a bit of something concerning bubbling just below the surface. She played it more sneakily and more manipulatively than Bergmann, but otherwise the set and directorial decisions were very similar and it was also great to watch.

Quite literally, the best version I saw was left to last. It was a pro-shot video on National Theatre at Home performed and recorded in 2017. I felt in this version I saw the play in all of its potential and became passionate about seeing it performed locally. The stage was extremely bare… and while I’ve started to become a fan of simple staging it leaned into the “come on mate, have a bit of a go” territory. But it did work effectively in giving the cast plenty of freedom of movement and self expression.

And what a cast. Really. I didn’t recognise many of the actors (other than Ruth Wilson as Hewdda and Rafe Spall as Judge Brack), but they all seemed to find a way to stamp their characters more personally and more substantially than in the other two versions I saw. 

But it was a tour de Force for Ruth Wilson. She was hanging on to her sanity by a thread at times (her character that is). Her outbursts were bigger and louder. She was at times more charming than the others I saw (sorry Ingy and Di) and while all of them did great work with the domineering, manipulative and nasty elements, Ruth brought a whole other layer in the vulnerability stakes. 

AND huge praise for Rafe Spall who showed the most ominous and even terrifying of the Judges I saw. Man did he own that role. You could absolutely feel how trapped and fearful Hedda was and despite her being very much an architect of her own situation STILL find sympathy for her. His scene with the can of Big Tom tomato juice is very unsettling in a kind of “Reservoir Dogs” kind of way. And speaking of that film, this production also made great use of incorporate music, including “Blue” by Jonie Mitchell, “Hallelujah” (the Jeff Buckley version) and “Wild is the Wind” sung by Nina Simone

There were many staging differences (and the work is described as being Patrick Marber’s adaptation) but I don’t think there were any major plot/script changes. Just finessing. In short, this emotional, engaging, aggravating yet satisfying rendition was absolutely brilliant. 

There were other versions I wanted to see, including the 1972 version with Janet Suzman and a young up and coming actor called Ian McKellan, and the latest riff, “Hedda” starring Tessa Thompson while I expect I’ll watch soon, but if I didn’t draw the line this blog would become 100 versions of the same play in 365 days.

Final thoughts

Firstly, YES it would work in Goulburn. Could I please direct it? Actually maybe it would benefit from a female director’s perspective. Either way, I’m very keen to see it and already fan casting the thing.

This is a very strong play with plenty of bits of meat in it that keeps it relevant all these 140 odd years later. Obviously how trailblazing it must have been to have an anti-heroine in such a strong and commanding role in the way back machine, but it’s still attracting actors, still attracting audiences.

If I haven’t been clear enough, I was very impressed. 

And so ends my five-play quick visit to the works of Henrik Ibsen. I totally get the significance of his influence on realism in theatre. In several plays I found on very rare occasions a rushed timing of events leading to the denouement, or in a few occasions a slightly implausible motive a little frustrating, but these are all very clever, multi-faceted, multi-themed works. 

Ibsen was, against considerable negative publicity and public reception, forging his own path and setting theatre in a new direction. People aren’t simply redoing so many of his plays all of these years later out of kindness… they are loved, respected and they work. I’ve very much enjoyed getting to know more about Ibsen and a handful of his works… now on the Mr Chekhov (and no, not on the deck of the USS Enterprise).

Materials accessed:

• “Hedda Gabler” – script. Available at various places including The Internet Archive.

• “Hedda Gabler” – Telemovie (1962). BBC Telemovie available on Youtube.

• “Hedda Gabler”  - Telemovie (1980). ITV telemovie on Youtube.

• “National Theatre Live: Hedda Gabler” – Pro-shot video (2017). National Live Theatre production. Available on National Theatre at Home by subscription.