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.
No comments:
Post a Comment