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.
No comments:
Post a Comment