The Cambridge Companion to Chekhov (Cambridge Companions to Literature)

This volum e o f speciall y commissione d essay s explore s th e worl d o f Anto n Chekhov - on e of the most influential an d widely performed dramatist s in the repertoire an d the creation, performance an d interpretation o f his work. The Companion begin s with an examination o f Chekhov's life and his Russia and the origina l production s o f hi s plays a t th e Moscow Ar t Theatre. Later fil m versions an d adaptation s o f Chekhov' s work s ar e analysed , wit h valuabl e insights als o offere d i n actin g Chekho v b y Ia n McKellen , an d directin g Chekhov b y Trevo r Nun n an d Leoni d Heifetz . Th e volum e als o provide s essays o n 'specia l topics ' suc h a s Chekho v a s narrativ e writer , Chekho v and women , an d th e Chekho v comedie s an d stories . Ke y plays , suc h a s The Seagull and The Cherry Orchard receive dedicated chapter s while lesser known work s an d genre s ar e als o brough t t o light . Th e volum e conclude s with appendice s o f primar y sources , list s o f works , illustrations , an d a selected bibliography.

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

CAMBRIDGE COMPANION S T O LITERATUR E The Cambridge Companion to Old English Literature edited by Malcolm Godden and Michael Lapidge The Cambridge Companion to Dante edited by Rachel Jacoff The Cambridge Chaucer Companion edited by Piero Boitani and Jill Mann The Cambridge Companion to Medieval English Theatre edited by Richard Beadl e The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare Studies edited by Stanley Wells The Cambridge Companion to English Renaissance Drama edited by A. R. Braunmuller an d Michael Hattaway The Cambridge Companion to English Poetry, Donne to Marvell edited by Thomas N. Corns The Cambridge Companion to Milton edited by Dennis Danielson The Cambridge Companion to British Romanticism edited by Stuart Curra n The Cambridge Companion to James Joyce edited by Derek Attridg e The Cambridge Companion to Ibsen edited by James McFarlane The Cambridge Companion to Brecht edited by Peter Thomason and Glendyr Sacks The Cambridge Companion to Beckett edited by John Pilling The Cambridge Companion to T. S. Eliot edited by A. David Moody The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism edited by Jill Kraye The Cambridge Companion to Joseph Conrad edited by J. H. Stape The Cambridge Companion to William Faulkner edited by Philip M. Weinstein The Cambridge Companion to Henry David Thoreau edited by Joel Myerson The Cambridge Companion to Edith Wharton edited by Millicent Bell

The Cambridge Companion to American Realism and Naturalism edited by Donald Pizer The Cambridge Companion to Mark Twain edited by Forrest G. Robinson The Cambridge Companion to Walt Whitman edited by Ezra Greenspa n The Cambridge Companion to Ernest Hemingway edited by Scott Donaldson The Cambridge Companion to the Eighteenth-Century Novel edited by John Richetti The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen edited by Edward Copeland and Juliet McMaster The Cambridge Companion to Samuel Johnson edited by Greg Clingham The Cambridge Companion to Oscar Wilde edited by Peter Raby The Cambridge Companion to Tennessee Williams edited by Matthew C. Roudane The Cambridge Companion to Arthur Miller edited by Christopher Bigsby The Cambridge Companion to the French Novel: from 1800 to the Present edited by Timothy Unwin The Cambridge Companion to the Classic Russian Novel edited by Malcolm V. Jones and Robin Feuer Miller The Cambridge Companion to English Literature, 1650—1740 edited by Steven N. Zwicker The Cambridge Companion to Eugene O'Neill edited by Michael Manheim The Cambridge Companion to George Bernard Shaw edited by Christopher Inne s The Cambridge Companion to Ezra Pound edited by Ira B. Nadel The Cambridge Companion to Modernism edited by Michael Levenson The Cambridge Companion to American Women Playwrights edited by Brenda Murph y The Cambridge Companion to Thomas Hardy edited by Dale Kramer The Cambridge Companion to Chekhov edited by Vera Gottlieb and Paul Allain

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

CAMBRIDGE COMPANION S T O CULTUR E The Cambridge Companion to Modern German The Culture Culture edited by Eva Kolinsky and Wilfried van der Will edite The Cambridge Companion to Modern Russian Culture edited by Nicholas Rzhevsky

Cambridge Companion to Modern Spanish d by David T. Gies

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

THE CAMBRIDG E COMPANION T O

CHEKHOV

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

THE CAMBRIDG E COMPANION T O

CHEKHOV EDITED BY

VERA GOTTLIE B Research Professor in Drama, Goldsmiths College AND

PAUL ALLAI N Senior Lecturer in Drama, University of Kent

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRES S

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

PUBLISHED B Y THE PRES S SYNDICAT E O F TH E UNIVERSIT Y O F CAMBRIDG E

The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSIT Y PRES S

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU , U K 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, vie 3207, Australia Ruiz de Alarcon 13 , 2801 4 Madrid, Spain Dock House, The Waterfront, Cap e Town 8001, Sout h Africa http://www.cambridge.org © Cambridg e University Press 2000 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2000 Third printing 2004 Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge Typeface Sabon 10/13 P1 System 3B2 [CE ] A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress cataloging in publication data The Cambridge companion to Chekhov / edited by Vera Gottlieb and Paul Allain. p. cm . - (Cambridg e companions to literature) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN o 521 58117 6 (hardback) - ISB N O 521 58917 7 (paperback) 1. Chekhov , Anton Pavlovich, 1860-1904 - Criticis m and interpretation. 1. Gottlieb, Vera, 1946- . 11 . Allain, Paul. m . Series. PG3458.Z8C36 200 0 89i.72'3-dc2i 00-05557 8 CI P ISBN o 521 5811 7 6 hardback

ISBN o 521 58917 7 paperback

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

This book is dedicated to Stephen Slatter Paul Slatter and Johnny

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov's wa y i s th e wa y o f Russia n freedom , th e embodimen t o f tha t Russian democracy, true and humane, which never materialised. Vasily Grossman, Life and Fate, 198 8

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

CONTENTS

List of illustrations page Acknowledgements x Notes on contributors xvi Chronology xx Editorial notes: transliteration, translation and titles, calendar dates xxv Preface xxi

xii i v i i i x

PART i: Chekho v in context i 1 D r Chekhov : a biographical essa y (2 9 January 1860-1 5 Jul y 1904 ) 3 ALEXANDER CHUDAKO V

2 Chekho v an d his Russia 1

7

EMMA POLOTSKAY A

3 Chekho v a t the Moscow Art Theatre 2

9

ANATOLY SMELIANSK Y

PART 2: Chekhov in production 4 4 Fro m Platonov t o Piano 4

1 3

EDWARD BRAU N

5 Chekhov' s one-ac t plays and the full-length play s 5

7

VERA GOTTLIE B

6 Ivanov:

th e invention o f a negative dramaturg y 7

0

PATRICE PAVI S

7 The

Seagull: an adaptatio n 8

THOMAS KILRO Y

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

0

CONTENTS

8 Note s from a director: Uncle Vanya 9

1

LEONID HEIFET Z

9 Note s from a director: Three Sisters 10

1

TREVOR NUN N

10 The

Cherry Orchard 11

1

EDWARD BRAU N

11 Actin g Chekhov:'A frien d t o the actor ' 12

1

IAN MCKELLE N

12 Th e scenograph y o f Chekho v 13

4

ARNOLD ARONSO N

13 Chekho v o n scree n 14

9

PHILIP FRENC H

14 Chekho v o n the Russian stag e 16

2

TATIANA SHAKH-AZIZOV A

15 Directors ' Chekho v 17

6

LAURENCE SENELIC K

Selected glossary 19

1

PART 3: Chekhov the writer 20

1

16 Chekhov' s storie s an d the plays 20

3

DONALD RAYFIEL D

17 Th e stag e representation o f Chekhov' s women 21

6

CYNTHIA MARS H

18 Chekhov' s comed y 22

8

VERA GOTTLIE B

Appendix 1: Chekhov's works: primary sources from the Russian - 23 variations of English titles from the Russian Appendix 2: Selected stage productions 24 Appendix 3 : Selected screen versions 2.60 Appendix 4: Illustrations 26 Selected bibliography 2.66 Index of works by Chekhov 28 General index 28

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

9 5 3 0 3

ILLUSTRATIONS

1 Mosco w Art Theatre production o f The Three Sisters at Brooklyn Academy of Music, January 1998 . Sets and Costume by Valery Levental, directed by Oleg Yefremov. Photo by Dan Rest. page

3 8

2 Ia n McKellen (D r Dorn) and Claudie Blakley (Nina ) in The Seagull at the West Yorkshire Playhouse, presented b y the West Yorkshire Playhous e Courtyard Company , Leeds, October 1998 , directed by Jude Kelly, designed by Robert Innes-Hopkins. Photo by Keith Pattison. 13

2

3 The Cherry Orchard, Act One, Romanian National Theatre (1993) , directed by Andrei Serban, designed by Santa Loquasto, originally produced b y the New York Shakespeare Festiva l at the Vivian Beaumont Theatre in New York City. Photo by Alexandra Serban . 14

3

4 The Cherry Orchard, Act One, Romanian National Theatre (1993) , directed by Andrei Serban, designed by Santa Loquasto, originally produced b y the New York Shakespeare Festiva l at the Vivian Beaumont Theatre in New York City. Photo by Alexandra Serban . 14

3

5 Mode l for Ivanov, designer David Borovsky, director Ole g Yefremov , Moscow Art Theatre, 1976 . Photo: Arnold Aronson 26

3

6 Mode l for The Seagull, designe r Valery Levental, director Ole g Yefremov , Moscow Art Theatre, 1980 . Photo: Arnold Aronson 26

4

7 The Seagull, designe r Josef Svoboda , director Otoma r Krejca, Tyl Theatre, Prague, 1984 . From the Czech Theatre Institute: catalogue In Search of Light, 1995 . Reproduced courtesy of Arnold Aronson. 26

4

8 The Seagull, Act 1 , designer Yannis Kokkos, Theatre d e Chaillot, Paris, 1984. Credit, courtesy of Yannis Kokkos. 'Impressionism was the aesthetic starting point for The Seagull. I did not want

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

ILLUSTRATIONS

to work in the outdated, stereotypical cameo style which is associated with Chekhov and which would have drowned the design in nostalgia . . . The design for The Seagull comes from two sources: first, French Impressionism - thoug h more realistic, like the Russian painter Levitan, a friend of Chekhov; and on the other hand, the colored light compositions made of grains of primary colors as in the first color photographs.' - Yanni s Kokkos. 26 Illustrations courtesy of Arnold Aronson, Laurence Senelick, Yannis Kokkos, the West Yorkshire Playhouse and the Czech Theatre Institute Catalogue: In Search of Light, 1995.

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The editors woul d like to express particular appreciatio n t o the following : Sergei Volnyets fo r wor k don e o n the translation o f th e Russian chapters ; to Tatiana Shakh-Azizova, friend an d colleague, for her work as 'unofficial ' Moscow coordinato r an d advisor ; D r Valentin a Ryapolova , whos e hel p included concret e advic e o n th e nuance s o f translation ; t o Alexande r Akhtyrsky fo r hi s hel p i n man y differen t ye t essentia l ways ; Professo r Edward Brau n fo r actin g a s a crucia l advisor , criti c an d significantly , translator; t o Arnol d Aronso n an d Laurenc e Senelic k fo r thei r hel p ove r and abov e their contribution s a s writers, in obtaining som e of the illustrations; t o Mora g Derb y o f th e Roya l Nationa l Theatre ; th e Britis h Fil m Institute (BFI) ; th e Wes t Yorkshir e Playhouse ; th e Theatr e Museum , London; to Hilary Wilson, Administrator o f the Drama Department, Gold smiths College; Elizabeth Goldsmith; and most of all to Joanna Labon, and to Iren e Slatte r o f th e Russia n Department , Universit y o f Durha m fo r support and help. The Commissioning Editor, Dr Victoria Cooper of Cambridge University Press, deserve s specia l gratitud e fo r he r characteristi c flexibility, an d unfailing sense of humour combined with invaluable critical judgement, and for makin g a potentiall y comple x editoria l jo b no t onl y a s painles s a s possible, but positively enjoyable. We are also indebted to Audrey Cotterell for her copy-editing advice, for her patience and for her help with this book, and t o Michell e Williams , o f th e Productio n Departmen t o f Cambridg e University Press, for her tolerance, patience, and positive assistance. The Britis h Counci l gav e financial an d practica l suppor t i n fundin g a British-'Soviet' Theatr e Conference , hel d a t Goldsmith s Colleg e i n Ma y 1992, a t which som e o f th e contributor s first made a commitment t o thi s volume, in particular Anatoly Smeliansky and Tatiana Shakh-Azizova . Professor Ver a Gottlieb is glad to acknowledge th e invaluable assistanc e of th e Britis h Academ y fo r th e awar d o f a Researc h Fellowship , whic h enabled her to work in Moscow on the preparation of this volume.

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Vera Gottlie b woul d als o lik e t o expres s dee p appreciatio n t o Georg e Hamilton, Adria n Tookman , Davi d Lipkin , Andre w Platt , an d thei r respective teams at the Royal Free Hospital, London, including Phyl MorrisVincent, Kate Jones, Leslie Mattin, Mila Constant and the Community team of BP4. Without them , an d many others, it may not hav e bee n possible to personally fulfi l thi s commitment , bu t Professo r Te d Braun, a s frien d an d colleague, my friend an d siste r Iren e Slatte r ( a Russian specialist) , an d D r Victoria Cooper, with Dr Paul Allain, would have ensured its completion.

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

NOTES O N CONTRIBUTOR S

PAUL ALLAI N i

s Senior Lecturer i n Drama a t the University o f Kent, Canterbury . He collaborated with the Gardzienice Theatre Association extensively from 198 9 to 1993 , touring in Britain, Japan and the Ukraine, and is author of Gardzienice: Polish Theatre in Transition, 1997. He has worked a s Movement Director a t the Royal Shakespear e Compan y an d th e Royal National Theatr e i n London. He is writing a monograph on Tadashi Suzuki for Methuen.

ARNOLD ARONSO N i

s Chai r o f th e Theatr e Divisio n a t Columbi a Universit y in Ne w York . H e i s autho r o f The History and Theory of Environmental Scenography and American Set Design, 1981, and serve d a s edito r o f Theatre Design and Technology magazine from 197 8 to 1988. He has written extensively on scenograph y a s wel l a s avant-gard e theatr e an d hi s article s hav e bee n published i n a wid e variet y o f journals , referenc e books , an d anthologies . H e is currentl y preparin g American Avant-Garde Theatre fo r publicatio n b y Routledge.

EDWARD BRAU N i s Emeritus Professor o f Drama and

a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Bristol. His compilation of Meyerhold's writings, Meyerhold on Theatre, was published in 1969, and his critical study, The Theatre of Meyerhold, in 1979 . This was followed i n 198 2 b y his analysi s o f moder n theatr e practice , The Director and the Stage. Since the n h e ha s publishe d widel y o n Russia n theatre, including in 1995 a reappraisal of Meyerhold's work entitled Meyerhold: A Revolution in Theatre. He has also published a number of articles on television drama, an d hi s curren t researc h i s concerned wit h representation s o f histor y in drama. p . CHUDAKOV , D S (Philology) i s Senior Researc h Associat e a t the Institute o f World Literatur e an d Professo r a t the Gork y Institut e o f Literature , Moscow, an d autho r o f severa l work s includin g The World of Words and Things: from Pushkin to Tolstoy, 1982 ; Chekhov's World: Emergence and Affirmance, 1986, and Chekhov's Poetics, Moscow, 1987.

ALEXANDER

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

NOTES O N CONTRIBUTOR S P H I L I P FRENC H wa s for thirt y years

a BBC radio produce r an d ha s bee n drama critic of The New Statesman, principa l boo k critic of The Financial Times and a regular contributor t o numerous journals, most notably The Observer, where he has writte n a weekl y fil m colum n sinc e 1978 . Hi s book s includ e The Movie Moguls, 1971 ; Westerns, 1977 ; Three Honest Men: Edmund Wilson, Lionel Trilling, F.R. Leavis, 1980; Malle on Malle, 1993 and The Faber Book of Movie Verse, 1994 .

VERA GOTTLIE B i

s Researc h Professo r i n th e Dram a Department , Goldsmith s College, University of London. Publications include Chekhov and the Vaudeville, 1982; Chekhov in Performance in Russia and Soviet Russia, 1984; 'Thatcher' s Theatre - o r Afte r Equus', 1989 . Sh e ha s worke d a s script s adviso r an d consultant fo r th e RSC , fo r Channe l 4 an d i n Ne w York . Fo r Magn a Cart a Productions, sh e co-directed an d wrote with Rober t Gordo n Red Earth, Hampstead, London , 1984 ; Waterloo Road, Young Vi c Studio , London , 1986 ; sh e adapted/translated A Chekhov Quartet, New End Theatre, London and Chekhov Festival, Yalt a an d Moscow , 1990 , subsequentl y publishe d 1996 . Sh e co-edited Theatre in a Cool Climate, 1999 .

LEONID Y . H E I F E T Z , People' s Artist o f Russia , i s

a theatre directo r an d teacher . He i s a Professo r a t th e Russia n Academ y o f Theatr e Arts , an d Chai r o f th e Department o f Directin g a t th e Shchuki n Dram a School . H e wa s Residen t Director a t th e Centra l Sovie t Arm y Theatr e (CSTA) , no w th e Russia n Arm y Theatre (RAT) , fro m 196 3 t o 197 0 (returnin g ther e a s Chie f Director , 1986-94). H e wa s als o Residen t Directo r a t th e Mal y Theatre , Mosco w (1970-86) an d a t th e MA T fro m 198 6 t o 1988 . Hi s best-know n production s include The Death of Ivan the Terrible by Alexe i K . Tolstoy , 1966 ; Before Sunrise b y Gerhar t Hauptmann , 1972 ; Fiesco's Plot b y Schiller , 1977 , an d Shakespeare's King Lear, 1979 , all at the Maly Theatre. He is also renowned fo r his productio n o f Dmitr y Merezhovsky' s Pavel I, 1989 , a s wel l a s Chekhov' s Uncle Vanya, The Cherry Orchard and Three Sisters, directe d both in Russia and abroad. s a playwrigh t an d novelist . Hi s versio n o f The Seagull was produced a t the Royal Cour t in 198 1 in a notable productio n b y Max Stafford Clark. He has been awarded the Guardian Fiction Prize and Heinemann Award. His most recen t play , The Secret Fall of Constance Wilde, was presented a t the Abbey Theatre as part of the 199 7 Dublin Theatre Festival, and is opening at the Barbican Centre , London , i n Septembe r 2000 . H e i s a Fello w o f th e Roya l Society of Literature.

THOMAS KILRO Y i

CYNTHIA MARS H i

s Senio r Lecture r i n Russia n i n th e Departmen t o f Slavoni c Studies, University o f Nottingham . Sh e has published severa l book s o n Russian literature an d theatre , includin g M.A.Voloshin: Artist-Poet, 1983 , an d File on

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

NOTES O N CONTRIBUTOR S

Gorky, 1993, and many articles. She is currently writing a study of Gorky's plays, and workin g o n a projec t t o investigat e th e impac t o f Russia n theatr e o n th e British repertoire. She has directed most of Chekhov's plays, in both English and Russian. IAN MCKELLE N i

s on e o f Britain' s leadin g film , televisio n an d stag e actors , an d highly experience d i n playin g Chekhov . Hi s notabl e fil m part s includ e th e titl e role in Richard III, which he co-wrote and co-produced, and most recently James Whale i n Gods and Monsters. He ha s worke d extensivel y a t th e Roya l Shake speare Company and the Royal National Theatre as well as with leading regional theatres. He toured with Prospect Theatre for severa l years and then co-founde d the Actors ' Compan y i n 1972 . H e i s a membe r o f th e Boar d o f th e Roya l National Theatre , was knighted i n 199 1 and ha s received numerous award s fo r his acting.

TREVOR NUN N becam

e th e younges t Artisti c Directo r o f th e Roya l Shakespear e Company i n 1968 , directin g a hos t o f majo r production s includin g Nicholas Nickleby (winne r o f fiv e Ton y Awards) an d th e musical, Les Miserables, befor e leaving the RS C in 1986 . Subsequent production s hav e included Cats, Starlight Express, Porgy and Bess and Arcadia. He ha s worked extensivel y i n televisio n and film . H e succeede d Si r Richar d Eyr e a s Artisti c Directo r o f th e Roya l National Theatre.

PATRICE PAVI S i

s Professor o f Theatr e Studie s a t th e University o f Paris , SaintDenis, Arts Composante , Theatre . He is editor an d commentato r o n Chekhov' s plays for the edition Le Livre de Poche. Amongst many other articles and books, he is author of Performance Analysis, and of the Dictionary of the Theatre, 1998 . He has written introduction s t o La Mouette, Oncle Vania, Les Trois Soeurs, a s well as translated La Cerisaie with Elen a Zahradnikova, fo r Le Livre de Poche. In additio n h e has written a contemporary versio n o f The Seagull (M(o)uettes), 1999.

EMMA A . POLOTSKAYA , D

S (Philology ) work s a t th e Gork y Institut e o f Worl d Literature, Moscow . Sinc e 195 5 sh e ha s writte n an d publishe d a numbe r o f books and essays on Chekhov. She is an authority on Chekhov's bibliography and textual analysis . Amongst othe r titles , she is author o f Chekhov: The Evolution of Aesthetic Thought, 1979, and Chekhov's Characters, 1983 . She was a member of the prestigious editorial board for the academic edition of Chekhov's Collected Works and Letters in 30 Volumes, 1974-83 . Sh e ha s taugh t a t th e Literar y Institute in Moscow since 1957.

DONALD RAYFIEL D wa

s educated a t Dulwic h Colleg e an d a t Cambridge . He is Professor o f Russia n an d Georgia n a t Quee n Mar y an d Westfiel d College , University o f London . H e ha s writte n a numbe r o f monograph s o n Chekhov ,

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

NOTES O N CONTRIBUTOR S

including Chekhov: The Evolution of His Art, 1975, as well as a biography of the explorer Przhevalsky and a history of Georgian literature. He is currently editing for publication the diaries of Alexey Suvorin, Chekhov's publisher. LAURENCE SENELIC K i

s Fletche r Professo r o f Dram a an d Orator y a t Tuft s University and Honorary Curato r o f Russian Drama an d Theatre at the Harvard Theatre Collection. His many books include The Chekhov Theatre: A Century of the Plays in Performance, 1997 ; Anton Chekhov, 1985; Mikhail Shchepkin: His Life and Art, 1984 , and Gordon Craig's Moscow 'Hamlet', 1982. Among works edited ar e Russian Dramatic Theory from Pushkin to the Symbolists, 1981; Russian Satiric Comedy, 1983 , and National Theatre in Europe 1746-1900, 1991.

TATIANA K . sHAKH-AZizoV A work

s a t th e Stat e Institut e o f Art s Studies , Moscow, and is the author o f Chekhov and West European Drama of his Time, 1966, and of numerou s essay s o n the treatment o f Chekhov' s theatr e o n stage and screen. She has worked on several series of television and radio programmes on Chekhov's plays. Other work includes chapters in The History of the Russian Theatre in 7 volumes, Moscow , 1977-87 , an d essay s o n twentieth-centur y theatre an d the inter-relationships o f theatres. She is also a regular theatr e criti c whose numerou s article s includ e severa l o n the International Chekho v Theatr e Festivals in Moscow between 1992 and 1998.

ANATOLY SMELIANSKY , Docto

r o f Arts , i s Associat e Artisti c Directo r o f th e Moscow Ar t Theatre , 1980- , Associat e Hea d o f th e Mosco w Ar t Theatr e School, 1987- , an d Visitin g Professo r o f th e Carnegi e Mello n University / Moscow Ar t Theatr e Schoo l MF A in Acting Program , 1994- . H e has written many article s o n Stanislavsky , Bulgako v an d Chekhov . Hi s book s includ e 7s Comrade Bulgakov Dead ?, 1993, and The Russian Theatre after Stalin, 1999, a s well as a book on Stanislavsky to be published by Cambridge University Press.

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

CHRONOLOGY

i860 (2

9 January) Anton Pavlovich Chekhov born in Taganrog, a port in the Crimea (an inlet of the Sea of Azov, itself an inlet of the Black Sea), 600 miles south of Moscow.1 Grandfather, a former serf , liberated with the emancipation of 1861. Anton was the third son of shop-owner Pavel Yegorovich Chekhov and Yevgeniya Yakovlevna Chekhova .

1868 Attend s Taganrog Grammar School (for Boys) after briefl y attending the Greek school. 1873 Create s comic sketches for performance a t home. Shows early interest in theatre. Sees local productions of Hamlet and Russian classics, Gogol's The Government Inspector and Griboyedov's Woe from Wit (also translated as Wit Works Woe). 1875 Begin

s his own humorous magazine Stammerer (Zaika) for circulation within the family, of comic sketches of Taganrog life.

1876 Fathe

r declared bankrupt. Family leaves for Moscow and Chekhov left alon e in Taganrog to complete schooling. Works as tutor.

1877 Firs

t visit to Moscow, where his family is in hardship. He has to return to Taganrog to finish schooling.

1878 Write

s full-length untitle d play subsequently known as Fatherlessness, then Platonov, which was neither performed no r published in his lifetime. Writes two vaudevilles which were also unpublished.

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

CHRONOLOGY

1879 Begin

s regular submission of short stories to the humorous magazine Dragonfly. Moves to Moscow permanently and assumes father's plac e as head of family. Enrols at School of Medicine, Moscow University, in August.

1880 Firs

t sketch published in Dragonfly. 'Lette r from th e Don Landowner Stepa n Vladimirovitch N. to His Learned Neighbour Dr Frederik'. More pieces accepted under various pseudonyms, such as 'Antosha Chekhonte ' or 'My Brother's Brother'. Meets landscape painter Isaac Levitan, who becomes a close friend .

18 81 Sara

h Bernhardt performs i n Moscow. Chekhov considers her acting 'artificial' .

1882 Increasingl y dependent on writing to support family, while continuing with medical studies. 1883 Write

s many pieces for popular magazine Splinters (Oskolki).

1884 Publicatio n of first boo k of selected pieces, Tales of Melpomene. Has now published more than 20 0 pieces. Graduates in medicine. Shows first symptom s of tuberculosis. 1885-86 Mor e than 10 0 new short stories, many for St Petersburg Gazette (Peterburgskaya gazeta). First story published under his own name, and first in New Time (Novoye vremya). An influential lette r from establishe d novelist Grigorovich encourages him to take writing more seriously. First collection of selected tales is published, Motley Tales (1886). In the same year he meets A.S. Suvorin, owner of New Time, which is the beginning of a long friendship wit h Suvorin as his publisher. It is a friendship no t without seriou s differences ove r politics, such as over the Dreyfus Case . 1887 Secon d book of selected stories published, In the Twilight. Firs t publication o f vaudeville, Swan Song. Initial version of Ivanov written at request of owner of the privately owned Korsh Theatre, Moscow. Ivanov premiere d there, 1 9 November, to mixed reception.

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

CHRONOLOGY

y 'The Steppe' published in the serious journal Northern Herald (Severny vestnik). Plays Swan Song premiered at Korsh Theatre, 19 February, and The Bear, written in February, staged in October. Begins work on The Wood-Demon (considered by most critics to have developed into Uncle Vanya). Writes one-act farce The Proposal. Receives Pushkin Prize for 'I n the Twilight'. First meeting with Stanislavsky.

1888 Stor

1889 Favourabl e reception of revised Ivanov, at the Imperial Alexandrinsky Theatre, St Petersburg, 31 January. Writes and publishes stories including 'The Princess', 'A Dreary Story', and the one-act plays The Wedding and A Tragic Role. Works on The Wood-Demon: first draft rejecte d b y the Alexandrinsky Theatre; revised version performed a t another private theatre, the Abramov Theatre, Moscow, on 27 December and unanimously condemned. Taken off after first performance. Brother Nikolai dies of tuberculosis. 1890 'Gusev ' published. Leaves Moscow on 21 April and travels across Siberia by train, horse-drawn vehicle and river-boat, to investigate conditions on penal island of Sakhalin: compiles census there. Returns to Moscow in early December via Hong Kong, Singapore and Ceylon. 1891 'Th

e Duel' and 'Peasant Women' published in New Time. Writes 'The Grasshopper' and completes the one-act play The Anniversary (Jubilee). Six-week tour of Western Europe with A.S. Suvorin. Helps with medical relief of famine victims in Central and South-East Russia.

1892-3 Twenty-on e stories published, including 'Ward No. 6' (1892). Buys small estate, Melikhovo, fifty miles south of Moscow, and the family moves there in March 1892 . Opens clinic and practises medicine for local peasants while continuing to write. 1893-4 Non-fictiona l wor k The Island of Sakhalin is completed and appears serially in Russian Thought (Russkaya mysl), leading to some penal reform. 1894 Write

s 'The Black Monk'. Publishes another collection of selected stories, Stories and Tales. Travels again to Western Europe.

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

CHRONOLOGY

1895 'Thre

e Years' published, and appears in book form. Writes 'Ariadne', 'The Murder', 'Ann a Round the Neck'. Begins writing The Seagull in the autumn. First meeting with Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy.

1896 Revise s The Seagull for premiere at the Imperial Alexandrinsky Theatre, St. Petersburg, 1 7 October. Extremely hostile reception devastates him. 1897 'Peasants ' published. Publishes Uncle Vanya but refuses to allow performance unti l 1899. Undertakes work for national census. In March he has haemorrhage of the lungs and is diagnosed with tuberculosis. Visits Europe in August, for convalescence, and spends winter in southern France. 1898 Tonytch' , 'A Man in a Case', 'Concerning Love' and 'Gooseberries' published. Supports Zola over Dreyfus Cas e during the trial, resulting in near break with Suvorin. Nemirovich-Danchenko persuades a reluctant Chekhov to let him produce The Seagull at the new People's Art Theatre (later Moscow Art Theatre). Leaves France for Russia in early May. Attends Moscow Art Theatre rehearsals of The Seagull, September. Meets the actress Olga Knipper (later to be his wife), but leaves almost immediately for the Crimea before winter. Successful firs t performance o f The Seagull by Moscow Art Theatre (MAT), 17 December, establishes Chekhov as a playwright. The fiasco of the first production (1896 ) had resulted in Chekhov's unwillingness to risk another public performance. Stanislavsky did not want to take the play but was persuaded by co-founder o f MAT Nemirovich-Danchenko. In spite of some interpretative misunderstandings (whic h characterised all MAT productions of his plays) the production was a success. Meets Gorky in Yalta, where he buys land to build a house. Father, Pavel Yegorovich Chekhov, dies. 1899 'Lad

y with a Little Dog' and two short sketches, 'The New Villa' and 'On Official Business' , are published. Begins writing Three Sisters. Completes contract with A. F. Marx, publisher, for Complete Edition of Works. Premiere of Uncle Vanya at MAT, 26 October, is moderate success. Chekhov confined t o Yalta for health reasons and unable to attend. Olga Knipper

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

CHRONOLOGY

visits Melikhovo, which he sells in June. Moves to Yalta with his mother and sister Masha. 1900 Complete s 'In the Ravine'. First two volumes of the Marx Edition of Chekhov's Works appear . MAT Company visits Sevastopol and Yalta and he sees Uncle Vanya for first time. Reads first draft o f Three Sisters to MAT in November. Begins courting Olga Knipper. 1901 Premier e of Three Sisters, MAT, 31 January, with Olga Knipper as Masha, has moderate success. Ten of the eleven volumes of Marx Edition published by the end of 1901. Chekhov marries Olga Knipper, 25 May, in quiet ceremony in Moscow. 1902 Complete s 'The Bishop' and begins work on The Cherry Orchard. His strength noticeably declines in the winter. 1903 Complete s 'The Bride' and works on final volume of Marx Edition. Finishes first draft o f The Cherry Orchard, 2 6 September, but undertakes second and third drafts, both only completed by 12 October. Arrives Moscow in early December, for MAT rehearsals of The Cherry Orchard. Disagrees over the casting and interpretation, with Stanislavsky advocating its serious nature above its comic elements. 1904 Premier e of The Cherry Orchard, MAT, 17 January, proves a success. Chekhov attends during third act. Leaves for Badenweiler 'to take the waters' in the Black Forest with Olga Knipper, where he dies of tuberculosis on 15 July. After a drink, his last words to Knipper are: 'It's a long time since I drank champagne'. Confusion o f funeral processio n as his coffin is transported in a railway wagon labelled 'Fresh Oysters'. Buried beside his father i n Moscow. NOTE Even in Chekhov's lifetime, Taganrog was beginning to be superseded as a trade centre b y Rostov-on-Don, give n the developmen t o f th e railways i n the 1870 s (see chapte r 1 0 in thi s volume). Th e growin g por t o f Odessa , directl y o n th e Black Sea, also superseded Taganrog's position as a trade centre.

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

EDITORIAL NOTE S

Transliteration The editor s too k th e decisio n not t o standardis e th e variou s system s o f transliteration use d b y contributors fro m Russia , fro m th e Unite d States , France, th e Iris h Republi c an d th e UK . In the cas e o f thi s volume , wher e there ar e differen t scholarl y approaches , varie d angles , emphase s an d priorities, one contributor ma y need one of the four system s of translitera tion (America n Librar y o f Congress , Systems , i , n , in , iv ) whil e anothe r may requir e eithe r a differen t syste m - o r non e a t all , a s i n th e cas e o f chapters 9 an d 11 , for instance . W e have therefor e lef t eac h contributo r free t o choos e th e transliteration syste m tha t suit s him o r he r best , rathe r than enforce consistency of any one system. Translation an d title s

In man y instances , Russian-speakin g contributor s hav e translate d thei r own excerpts from th e plays or stories . Where contributors hav e relied o n English translation s o f Chekhov , The Oxford Chekhov in 9 Volumes, translated an d edited b y Ronald Hingley, Oxford, 1965-8 0 (vols . I-III th e plays; vol s IV-IX , selecte d storie s o f 1888-1904) , i s for genera l referenc e (quoted by permission of Oxford University Press). For that reason we have retained, for reference purposes, Hingley's translation of Chekhov's act and scene division s whic h Chekho v discontinue d fo r th e las t fou r majo r play s e.g. Act Four, Scene IV. The fou r volume s o f storie s translate d b y Ronal d Wilk s fo r Penguin , have als o bee n use d (b y permission o f Pengui n Book s Ltd.) . The title s of stories an d play s i n Englis h ar e thos e use d b y Ronal d Hingle y i n The Oxford Chekhov, and Ronal d Wilks ' Pengui n edition s o f selecte d stories . (See Appendix 1. )

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

EDITORIAL NOTE S

Russian-speaking contributors have used material from the following: Collected Works, Letters, 1944-51, Chekhov, Anton, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem A.P. Chekhova, v zoi tomakh, edite d S . D. Balukhaty and others, Moscow, 1944-51 . Collected Works, Letters 1960-64, Chekhov, Anton, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem v izi tomakh, edite d b y V.V . Yermilov an d others , Moscow, 1960-4. Unless otherwis e specified , th e reference s t o Works and Letters are from the most recent and comprehensive collection: Chekhov, Anton, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem v 3oi tomakh, 197483, (Chekhov, Anton, Collected Works and Letters in 30 volumes, Moscow 1974-83) , edite d b y N . F . Belchiko v an d others , Moscow , 1974-83. Chekhov v vospominaniyakh sovremennikov (Chekhov in the Memoirs of his Contemporaries), edited by N. I. Brodsky and others, Moscow, 1954. For non-Russia n readers , th e editor s woul d lik e t o emphasis e th e centrality t o English-languag e Chekho v studie s o f Ronal d Hingley' s The Oxford Chekhov (above), and A New Life of Chekhov, London, 1976. For further sourc e material see Selected bibliography. Calendar date s

Dates befor e Octobe r 191 7 confor m t o th e old-styl e Julia n calendar . No t all contributors, however, have followed thi s system of dating.

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

PREFACE

Editing a collectio n o f essay s o n a write r a s internationall y renowned , complex an d productiv e a s Chekho v must , inevitably , resul t i n some hard choices. W e knew , however , tha t thes e choice s woul d defin e themselve s given thre e essential prerequisite s wit h whic h w e began . First , w e wanted the boo k t o includ e contribution s fro m professiona l practitioner s o f Chekhov's wor k i n the theatre, namely actors, directors, designers, writers and critics, since it is from practic e that muc h of theory arise s - o r may be tested. Second , th e momentou s change s i n Russi a (an d thu s Easter n Europe) startin g wit h th e Gorbache v er a hav e enable d u s t o tak e ful l advantage o f contributions fro m som e of Russia's leading Chekhov specia lists, whether practitioners or academics (a 'division' not recognised by our Russian colleagues) : th e director , Leoni d Heifetz ; th e literar y manage r o f the Mosco w Ar t Theatre , Anatol y Smeliansky ; th e leadin g critic , Tatian a Shakh-Azizova, an d th e theatr e historian s an d Chekho v scholars , Alex ander Chudako v an d Emm a Polotskaya . Eac h bring s a particular percep tion t o th e subjec t a t a tim e whe n histor y i s bein g redefine d an d reevaluated, whethe r political , social or theatre history. Finally, we wanted the boo k t o offe r th e reader a s much insight a s possible into othe r aspect s of Chekhov' s work , althoug h th e emphasis o f the collection a s a whole is on Chekhov an d production . Thu s the many screen versions o f Chekhov' s works - fa r mor e than o f such contemporaries a s Ibsen, Strindberg , Wilde or Sha w or , later , Brech t - ar e analyse d b y on e o f Britain' s leadin g fil m critics: Philip French, who review s films o f the plays and also som e of the stories. Equally , Chekhov' s shor t stories , althoug h seemingly confined t o only on e chapte r b y Donald Rayfield , ar e als o discusse d b y severa l othe r contributors, particularl y Alexande r Chudakov , Emm a Polotskay a an d Cynthia Marsh , an d ar e referre d t o b y other s wher e th e dramati c an d literary Chekhovian themes become inseparable in content, although not in medium or genre. Writing about Chekho v with the historical perspectives o f 199 9 has cast

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

PREFACE

an unusua l ligh t o n th e importance , treatmen t an d approac h t o Chekho v throughout th e twentiet h century , s o w e woul d hop e tha t th e volum e provides th e studen t o f Chekho v wit h differen t viewpoint s fro m thos e of previous collections. It i s evident , too , fro m th e wor k o f al l ou r contributors, o f whateve r nationality (Russian , American, British, Irish or French) that some chapters have th e en d o f thi s centur y and th e comin g millenniu m a s a n implici t subtext, wit h a sense of tim e an d movemen t whic h woul d obviousl y hav e been lackin g eithe r fift y year s ag o or , fo r differen t reasons , durin g th e period o f th e Col d War . Thi s collectio n i s inevitabl y informe d b y th e 'symbol' o f 1989 : th e collaps e o f th e Berli n Wall , an d al l tha t ha s subsequently followed ove r the last ten years. However divers e th e approaches , personalitie s an d specialism s o f ou r contributors, they all share an expertise in Chekhov's work - difference s i n interpretations aris e not only through the normal variations of reading, but also through the diverse perspectives of their relationship to his work. Thus Ian McKelle n bring s to th e subjec t th e perspectiv e o f a great Britis h acto r who ha s playe d man y Chekhovia n roles ; director s lik e Trevo r Nun n an d Leonid Heifetz approac h th e plays from anothe r angl e in which sometime s minute detai l from a production alternate s with broad brushstrokes . In his chapter o n The Seagull, th e writer Thomas Kilroy debate s the relationshi p between the original play and his own version, se t in Ireland, whic h raises many ne w an d importan t issues . Likewise , th e scenographe r Arnol d Aronson draw s th e reade r i n to th e vital are a o f visua l interpretation an d the staging of many of the plays. No less significant ar e the chapters by the theatre scholars and historians, Laurence Senelick (author o f a major stud y of the plays in performance), Edward Braun and Patrice Pavis. It is relevant to thei r perception s tha t som e hav e themselve s create d viabl e productio n texts: Edwar d Brau n translate d a n innovator y versio n o f The Cherry Orchard for th e Britis h directo r Pete r Gill , whil e Patric e Pavi s i s bot h scholar an d commentato r o f al l Chekhov' s majo r play s i n Frenc h - a n important aspec t o f Pavis ' wor k whic h i s no t alway s generall y know n outside France , bu t th e popular an d accessibl e Le Livre de Poche editions of the plays are introduced by Pavis. Further aspect s ar e provided b y the major academi c critic s an d Slavists: Donald Rayfield write s directly about the short stories, yet brings them into a natura l relationshi p wit h th e dramati c works ; whil e Cynthi a Marsh , another Slavis t scholar, explores what may be seen as a particular 'female ' (as distinct from 'feminist' ) critiqu e of Chekhov's work. Alexander Chuda kov's biograph y o f Chekhov provides som e material eithe r littl e known o r previously under-emphasised outsid e Russia, while both Emma Polotskaya

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

PREFACE

and Tatian a Shakh-Azizov a offe r th e non-Russia n reade r o r spectato r significant ne w perspective s an d insights . Al l o f th e contributor s hav e i n common thei r share d interes t in , affection for , an d specialis t knowledg e of Chekhov's work. Emanating fro m thi s is a basic an d essential humanis m which is needed all the more give n the vacuum o f ideas o r even ideals wit h whic h we fac e not onl y th e en d o f a decade , an d th e en d o f a centur y - wit h reaso n described as 'the century of barbarism' - bu t also the new millennium. It is hard t o imagin e tha t Chekhov' s literar y an d dramati c work s woul d o r could attrac t th e interes t an d respec t o f thos e wh o d o no t plac e huma n needs an d huma n right s a s a central par t o f their individua l prioritie s an d beliefs - surel y on e explanatio n o f th e paucit y o f Chekho v production s during the Stalinist period. Shakh-Azizova quote s the Soviet novelist Vasily Grossman, i n whose Life and Fate one o f th e character s says : 'Chekhov' s way i s th e wa y o f Russia n freedom , th e embodimen t o f th e Russia n democracy, tru e an d humane , whic h neve r too k shape. ' An d i n thei r respective chapters , bot h Trevo r Nun n an d Ia n McKelle n emphasis e th e 'egalitarian' proces s o f Chekho v i n production: a collective an d ensembleforming proces s in which Chekho v i s - i n McKellen's word s - ' a frien d t o the actor' , requirin g a s muc h o f a seemingl y 'small ' role , lik e Charlott a Ivanovna in The Cherry Orchard as of Ranevskaya o r Lopakhin: 'Chekhov appeals t o m e [a s a n actor ] becaus e yo u canno t realis e th e pla y i n production unless ever y par t ha s bee n worke d o n fully' . I n thi s way , Chekhov's philosophy , hi s dramati c form , an d th e process of productio n are al l inextricabl y boun d u p wit h th e egalitarian , th e human e an d th e democratic. His plays simply could not flourish under any dictatorship - o r political an d socia l syste m i n whic h ordinar y peopl e (th e subject s o f hi s stories as much as of his plays) are not perceived a s important, an d within whom some elements of potency potentially reside. Thus even if a performer o r a reader or spectator is more concerned with form, Chekhov' s plays are almost inevitably going to invite the interest and concern o f the humanist - o f those attracte d b y his deep understanding of human being s an d psychology ; o f ou r plac e i n relatio n t o a socia l an d economic context, and the metaphysical determinants of life, death, nature, the seasons , th e passag e o f tim e an d ou r plac e i n th e writte n an d a s ye t unwritten history of human kind. Chekhov was as much aware of the need to hav e financial sufficienc y i f on e i s no t t o b e 'dispossessed ' an d s o 'disempowered' a s h e wa s awar e o f th e nee d t o liv e usefully , t o mak e a contribution to life - no t a judgemental or loaded issue in the works, but an inherent valu e syste m which i s often articulate d b y the characters . This is not t o say , however , tha t Chekho v himsel f ma y b e associate d wit h an y

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

PREFACE

particular characte r - i n fact , hi s objectivit y an d detachmen t provoke d much criticis m durin g hi s lifetime , an d ma y stil l lea d t o interpretativ e misunderstandings. Hi s objectivity , however , i s no t a denia l o f commit ment. T o this end , h e avoid s th e sentimenta l o r melodramati c or deliberately utilise s the m t o deflat e an d expose . I t i s her e tha t on e finds th e greatest controvers y attache d t o hi s plays , dependin g o n th e epoc h an d 'culture' which 'reads' him: his work has been seen as tragic, gloomy, heavy or, to put it in the terms of one of the earliest books on him: as 'the voice of twilight Russia' . Bu t wit h suc h a n interpretatio n th e directo r ha s t o g o against th e form o f hi s wor k - an d ignor e th e vita l rol e o f th e comed y which enable s Chekhov' s ton e t o remai n non-judgemental , detache d an d reserved. The interpretation o f a 'gloomy' Chekho v requires a slow pace of action, a s in the Pitoeff Company' s Pari s production o f Uncle Vanya, over thirty year s ago , i n whic h th e first page o f th e scrip t laste d nearl y fifteen minutes. The yawns and silences of Astrov and Marina wer e echoed by the audience. This i s a centra l productio n questio n o f al l o f Chekhov' s plays , an d similarly foun d i n bot h Beckett' s an d som e o f Pinter' s plays : ho w t o illustrate the boredom o r lethargy o r aimlessness o f the characters withou t sending the audience to sleep? The answer, of course, lies in the pace of the production - an d ful l us e o f th e comi c device s whic h remaine d largel y unacknowledged b y Stanislavsk y an d certainl y b y many o f Stanislavsky' s followers, particularl y filtered through Le e Strasberg' s reinterpretation s based a s they were o n the wildl y inaccurat e English-languag e translation s of Stanislavsky' s writings . A s severa l contributor s poin t out , whethe r Shakh-Azizova, Smeliansky , Brau n o r Senelick , i t ha s onl y bee n ove r th e last twenty-fiv e t o thirt y year s tha t director s hav e riske d innovator y Chekhov - directe d b y Heifetz an d Nunn, an d other radical director s such as Richard Eyre , Mike Alfreds, Anatol y Efros , Pete r Gill , Otome r Krejca , Andrei Serban , Yanni s Kokkos , Adolp h Shapiro , Pete r Stein , Giorgi o Strehler, Yur i Lyubimov , Jean Vilar , Ole g Yefremov , and , o f course , Pete r Brook. Thi s radicalis m wa s als o instigate d an d inspire d b y th e varyin g visual interpretations o f som e o f worl d theatre' s leadin g designer s suc h as Valery Levental, Josef Svoboda, David Borovsky, Barkhin, Sofiya Yunovich, Santo Loquasto, Kokkos, Motley, Ashley, Martin-Davies, Pamela Howar d - amongs t many scenographers whos e visual interpretation ha s carried not only place, space and time, but also image, symbol and metaphor. And over the centur y ther e hav e bee n differen t approache s t o actin g Chekhov : th e performances b y Ian McKellen and many other actors have made it possible for the plays to be reconceived - an d rediscovered. This has also happened through differen t version s o f th e play s - fro m Trevo r Griffiths ' versio n of

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

PREFACE

The Cherry Orchard, Thomas Kilroy' s reconception o f The Seagull which gave i t a completel y ne w dimension , th e innovator y reinterpretatio n b y Efros, or Peter Brook's interpretation of The Cherry Orchard as timeless. The collectio n attempt s t o rais e som e o f th e centra l question s abou t Chekhov's wor k - althoug h th e emphasi s i s primaril y o n th e plays . Th e book fall s int o three parts: 'Chekhov in context', 'Chekho v i n production ' and 'Chekhov the writer'. And given the diversity of contributors, we hope that a diversit y o f approache s i s evident : whethe r th e biographical ; th e historical, both social and theatrical; the 'woman's perspective', for want of a bette r description ; th e critical , an d th e production-base d perception s o f different theatr e specialists . Ia n McKelle n sum s u p man y o f th e salien t points abou t actin g Chekhov : he is 'hard t o pin down ' give n 'many , many different style s withi n hi s writing ' an d 's o man y theme s goin g on' . An d also, a poin t mad e earlier , i t i s th e group , o r emergin g ensemble , whic h makes the production sinc e 'n o on e actor i s allowed t o run awa y with the play'. Chekhov i s frequently linke d wit h Shakespeare , no t onl y i n Russi a bu t internationally, a point made by Shakh-Azizova, Heifetz an d Nunn - i f this volume fail s t o justif y thi s compariso n i n term s o f importance , constan t reinterpretation an d frequency o f performance, the n it can only be through the failure o f the editors, and not the contributors. Few editors could have met wit h suc h sustaine d courtesy , patienc e an d expertis e a s fro m th e contributors o f this volume. Like others in the Cambridge Series, contributors hav e responded t o faxes , phon e calls , e-mails an d ordinar y letters : in spite o f th e difficultie s o f distanc e an d tim e zones , response s hav e bee n unfailingly swif t an d generous , makin g th e role o f edito r a delightfu l an d enjoyable task . It is , perhaps, unusua l t o mentio n th e Chekho v specialist s whos e wor k could not be included in this volume solely given limitations of space, but it would be wrong to leave the important work of John Tulloch, for example, or Patric k Miles , Mari a Shevtsova , Harve y Pitche r o r Hara i Golum b amongst others , simply t o th e bibliography . Thei r influenc e ma y b e felt i n different part s o f th e book . Equally , thos e whos e hel p ha s ha d a direc t bearing o n th e volum e ar e justl y mentione d i n th e acknowledgements , though non e ar e responsibl e fo r an y error s - thos e ar e entirel y th e responsibility of the editors. June 2000

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

ALEXANDER CHUDAKO V

Dr Chekhov : a biographical essa y (29 January 1860-1 5 Jul y 1904 )

Chekhov wa s a first-generation intellectual : hi s grandfathe r wa s a forme r serf, his father a small shopkeeper. 'There is peasant blood in me', he wrote (Letters, vol . V, p . 283). 1 But in the history of Russian culture, the name of Chekhov has become synonymous with intelligence, good upbringing - an d refinement. Ho w di d thes e qualitie s com e t o b e acquire d b y a provincia l boy wh o spen t hi s crucia l formativ e year s u p t o th e ag e o f ninetee n i n a small Russia n town ? Taganrog , Chekhov' s birthplace , wa s typica l o f Russian provincial towns of the time: taverns, little shops, 'not a single sign without a spellin g mistake' ; oi l lamps , an d wasteland s thickl y overgrow n with weeds . Chekhov' s memories , o f hi s 'green ' year s growin g u p i n Taganrog, are full o f references to puddles and unpaved streets. Taganrog wa s als o a southern port . Th e secon d floor of th e Chekhovs ' house wher e Anto n spen t his early secondar y schoo l year s overlooke d th e harbour cramme d a t the height of summer with steamer s and sailing ships. One could walk severa l miles along the shore and not se e a single Russian ship - instead , there were vessels from Turkey, the Greek Archipelago, Italy, Spain: th e San Antonio; th e Sophia, the Ogios Gerasimos, the Movludi Bagri. They brought wine from Madeir a an d Asia Minor, lemons, oranges, olive oil from Provence , and spices . Taganrog was the staging post fo r th e supply o f provisions t o th e whole Azo v region. By the tim e Chekho v wa s born thi s trad e ha d alread y passe d it s peak , bu t i t remaine d extremel y active throughout hi s schooldays. The streets were filled with the babble of foreign languages . Near the port was a street with coffee-shops, an d when the weathe r wa s fine the table s wer e packe d wit h Turks , Greeks , Frenc h and English. Pavel Yegorovich Chekhov' s stor e was on the ground floor of a house , an d fo r a tim e th e first floor housed a casino . Nearb y wa s th e London Hotel, with a female ban d to entertain th e sailors in the evenings. Taganrog was the Russian equivalent of the Mediterranean French ports. Pavel Chekho v decide d t o giv e his elder son s a Greek education . Ther e were si x children : five boy s an d on e girl , Mari a Chekhova . Chekhov' s

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

ALEXANDER CHUDAKO V

younger brother , Michael , recalled : 'A t tha t tim e ric h Greek s wer e th e cream o f Taganro g societ y . . . an d fathe r wa s convince d hi s childre n should follow th e Greek example, and perhap s even complete their education a t Athen s University.' 2 S o Anto n an d hi s brother s wer e sen t t o th e Greek school . Nothing cam e o f this, though the y spen t on e yea r studyin g under th e terrifyin g headmaster , Nikola i Vuchina. 3 The y spen t th e whol e summer bathin g i n the sea , swimmin g lon g distances . When Chekhov , b y then a well-know n writer , wa s returnin g fro m Sakhali n vi a th e India n Ocean, he amused himself b y diving from th e bow of the ship while it was sailing a t full speed , an d catchin g a rope hangin g from th e stern . Onc e he saw a shark i n the compan y o f pilot-fish . Thi s episod e i s described i n his story, 'Gusev ' (1890) . Th e impression s o f a winte r se a wit h it s terribl e storms are reflected in Chekhov's story 'On Christmas Night' (1883). Taganrog wa s a souther n town , surrounde d closel y o n al l side s b y the Steppe. Anton an d hi s brothers spen t thei r summe r holiday s i n the village of Knyazh i wit h thei r grandfather , a stewar d o n th e estat e o f Countes s Platova. Th e villag e wa s fort y mile s fro m th e tow n an d th e journe y i n a bullock cart took more than a day. At night they camped out on the Steppe, under th e stars. After si x years a t grammar school , Anton spen t a summer on th e estat e o f th e parent s o f hi s privat e pupil , Pety a Kravtsov . Tha t summer, th e Taganro g studen t an d 'tutor ' becam e a skille d sho t an d a n excellent horseman. Many years later, in 1898 , Chekhov wrote: 'I love the Don Steppe . At on e tim e i t wa s lik e hom e t o m e an d I knew ever y littl e gully' (Letters, vol. vn, p. 322). The Steppe landscapes ar e described in his earliest storie s ('29t h June ' an d 'Th e Mistress ' (1882)) , an d i n hi s first major work , th e stor y 'Th e Steppe ' (1888) . From childhood experienc e of the Steppe , natur e becam e a par t o f hi s ver y being . Durin g hi s tri p t o Siberia in 1890, he took delight in studying nature at close quarters, and in his letters he describes with rapture how for a whole month he watched the sunrise fro m beginnin g t o end . H e wa s acutel y awar e o f hi s bon d wit h nature; his moods reacte d t o th e changes i n the weather lik e a barometer . The influence tha t nature exerts on the human psyche is reflected i n stories such a s 'Th e Student ' (1894 ) an d 'Th e Murder ' (1895) . So trees, flowers, clouds, dog s an d wolve s fee l an d thin k lik e people , a s demonstrate d i n 'Agafia', 'Rusty ' ('Kashtanka') , 'Patch ' ('Beloloby' , 1895 ) an d 'Terror' (1892). The y grieve , rejoice , worr y an d fee l sad . Man y Russia n writer s have portraye d natur e an d animals . Perhaps th e work s o f Serge i Aksakov or Mikhai l Prishvin 4 wil l surviv e t o becom e uniqu e evidenc e o f ho w ou r planet used t o be , an d wha t amazin g creature s live d o n it . Bu t fo r th e present, we are more concerned with the experience of Chekhov who wrote not abou t th e solitar y lif e o f ma n a t on e with natur e an d th e bird s o f the

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Dr Chekhov: a biographical essay air, but about the everyday encounters of modern civilised man pursuing an urban existence , livin g i n a flat or a suburba n dacha . Bot h i n hi s writin g and i n hi s persona l life , Chekho v offere d u s example s t o follo w i n ou r dealings with our fellow creatures. The theatre i n Taganrog wa s far fro m typica l o f th e Russia n provincia l stage. Ho w man y o f th e smalle r theatre s coul d b e regularl y visite d b y touring Italia n oper a companies ? O r b y Sarasate, 5 o r Liszt' s pupil , Laur a Carer. Tommaso Salvini sang the title role in Otello. The repertoire feature d operettas b y Suppe , Lehar , Lecoc q an d Offenbach . Perhap s thes e othe r aspects o f Taganrog serve d onl y to accentuat e 'th e letharg y an d boredom ' of day-to-day reality. On 2 3 August 186 8 Anton Chekhov entered the preparatory class of the grammar school , wher e h e wa s t o stud y fo r th e nex t eleve n year s (h e repeated th e thir d an d fifth years). It wa s a classical gramma r schoo l an d special significance wa s ascribed to the study of classical languages. At the graduation examinations , Chekho v go t to p grade s i n Germa n an d Scrip ture. In his earlier year s th e young Anton wa s hindered b y having to help his father i n the shop afte r school , working there until late a t night. But if the work a t the shop - unde r th e sign 'Tea, Coffee an d Othe r Groceries ' did no t hel p Chekho v mak e progress a t school , it certainl y helpe d hi m in his creativ e writing . Th e sho p sol d a variety o f goods , includin g oil , fish, flour, tobacco , buttons, coffee, knives , confectionery, candles , spades, shoe polish, an d herrings . I t provide d no t onl y a n educatio n i n objects , bu t i t also served as an animate d lexicon . A shop in the provinces was a kind of club where people went not onl y to buy things, but also to drink a glass of vodka o r wine . I t wa s frequente d b y cooks, sho p assistants , th e wive s of officials, policemen , cab-drivers , fishermen, teachers, schoo l students , an d sailors. They al l talked, s o from hi s early childhood Anto n listene d t o the language of people of the most varied occupations. Later critics were to be amazed by Chekhov's knowledge of nautical terms, the language o f timber merchants or of haberdashery assistants. From early childhood Chekho v wa s kept bus y with domesti c chores: he shopped, cleane d th e flat, fetche d wate r fro m th e wel l an d eve n di d th e laundry. Household dutie s ar e exhausting in their monotony , in the meaningless repetitio n da y afte r da y o f th e sam e tasks , an d suc h dutie s ar e especially burdensome for a young person. And not only for a young person - Chekho v would show later in his writing how anyone who lives only in the material world and lacks the ability to resist it becomes completely stifled by the everyday, and then the spiritual gives way completely to the material. In describing this situation, Chekhov understood this not merely as a detached observer but knew it from persona l experience.

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

ALEXANDER CHUDAKO V

No les s forcibly, Chekho v wa s exposed fro m earl y childhood t o the ful l force o f th e Churc h Slavoni c languag e throug h compulsor y churc h atten dance, singin g i n th e churc h choir , religiou s ritual s a t hom e an d studyin g the Bible. But all this 'brough t A . P. into contact with the beautiful ancien t language of Church Slavonic , never allowing him to forget it , as happened with th e grea t majorit y o f Russia n intellectuals , an d nurturin g i n hi m a n acute feelin g fo r th e simpl e vernacula r tongue'. 6 Thu s thi s childhood , divided by the airless store and the open sea, the corridors o f the grammar school an d th e endles s Steppe , betwee n th e narro w milie u o f th e pett y clerks an d th e fre e an d eas y natura l lif e o f th e countr y people , offere d a vivid contras t betwee n natur e an d th e materia l worl d whic h promise d t o foster an artist with a most unconventional aesthetic perception of life. Chekhov's fathe r wen t bankrup t an d wa s facin g prison , s o h e an d th e family moved to Moscow. Anton spent the period from 187 6 to 1879 alone in Taganrog, making a living as a tutor whils t managing to send money to his parents. It was a time of solitude during which his character took shape. In 1879, he joined the Faculty of Medicine at Moscow University, where his lecturer s wer e suc h eminen t medica l scientist s a s Grigor y Zakharyin , Aleksei Ostroumo v an d Nikola i Sklifasovsky . Earl y on , h e becam e ac quainted with the theories of Charles Darwin, which he continued to study after graduating : 'I' m readin g Darwin . What a treat! I simply ador e him ' (Letters, vol. 1, p. 213). Studyin g th e natura l science s 'exerte d a colossa l influence o n th e whol e framewor k o f hi s thinking. Fo r him , th e truth s o f the natural science s radiated a poetic light an d it was such truths a s these, rather than socio-political doctrines, which shaped his fundamental percep tion o f lif e a s i t is , an d a s i t should be , an d o f man' s place.' 7 Thi s i s confirmed b y Chekhov, who in 1899, wrote in his autobiography: 'Ther e is no doubt that my study of medicine strongly affected m y work in literature' (Works, vol. xvi, p. 271). Even a s a first-year student , Chekho v wa s alread y contributin g shor t stories t o comi c magazine s (hi s first stor y appeare d i n The Dragonfly in 1880, bu t hi s mai n publishe r wa s th e magazin e Fragments). It wa s no t untypical fo r writer s to start their careers in popular publications: this was true o f Nikola i Nekrasov , Leoni d Andreyev , Mar k Twai n an d Ernes t Hemingway, to name but a few. But none of them published as many comic stories, sketches , spoo f advertisements , scene s o r anecdote s a s di d Chekhov. It is widely believed that this involvement wit h comic magazines distracted Chekho v from seriou s literary work. But it was not a s simple as that. Comi c magazine s offere d freedo m o f form : ther e wer e onl y tw o requirements - humou r an d conciseness . Nothin g else , whethe r plot , composition, techniqu e o r style , was bound b y any literary rules . None of

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Dr Chekhov: a biographical essay these publications belonged to any 'established' literary school or style. The small press was by its very nature eclectic. Authors were free to write in any manner, invent new techniques, modify the old conventions and experiment with new forms. Chekhov realised this very early on. Like any great talent, he knew how to tur n an y circumstance s t o hi s ow n advantage . H e wa s foreve r experi menting wit h ne w styles , assumin g ne w noms de plumes, explorin g eve r changing areas of life. If one looks at stories he wrote in the first fiv e years of his career, it is difficult t o discover a social stratum , profession o r trade that i s not represente d amongs t hi s characters . Ther e ar e peasant s an d landowners, shop assistants and merchants, sextons and priests, policemen and tramps , detective s an d thieves , schoolteacher s an d students , medica l orderlies an d doctors , civi l servant s o f al l ranks , soldier s an d generals , coquettes an d princesses , reporter s an d writers , conductor s an d singers , actors, prompters, impresarios, artists, cashiers, bankers, lawyers, hunters, tavern-keepers, street-cleaners . Fro m th e beginning , Chekho v wa s a n innovator who limited himself t o no one area of subject matter, a writer of universal socia l an d stylisti c range . Ye t fo r th e reade r ther e exis t tw o Chekhovs sid e b y side : th e on e wh o wrot e 'Fa t an d Thin ' (1883) , ' A Chameleon' (1884) , 'A Horse's Name' (1885), 'The Complaints Book'; and the othe r famou s fo r ' A Drear y Story ' (1889) , 'Th e Artist' s Story ' (Che khov's title is 'The House with the Mezzanine' (1896)), and ' A Lady with a Little Dog ' (1899) . Wha t coul d thes e 'two ' author s possibl y hav e i n common? Certainl y tha t wa s hi s contemporaries ' view . I n 1897 , th e prominent critic Nikolai Mikhailovsky wrote: 'It is difficult t o see anything in commo n betwee n 'Peasants ' (1897 ) an d Tvanov ' (1887-89) , betwee n 'The Steppe' , 'War d Numbe r 6 ' (1892) , 'Th e Blac k Monk ' (1894) , an d vaudevilles lik e The Bear (1888), o r th e numerou s comi c stories.' 8 Bu t in reality they are closely linked: Chekhov's 'humorous ' past had a significan t bearing on the evolution of his innovative creative thought. His early works contain the first sketches , the silhouettes, of his future acclaime d characters: Bugrov in ' A Living Chattel' (1882 ) foreshadow s Lopakhi n i n The Cherry Orchard (1904), while other character s prefigur e thos e i n the later works, such as Toporkov in 'Belated Blossom ' (1882) , 'Ionytch ' (1898 ) (Hingley' s title is 'Doctor Startsev'); the lathe operator Petrov in 'Sorrow' (1885) - an d the coffin-maker Yako v in 'Rothschild's Violin' (1894), and many others. Many of the artistic principles, explored by Chekhov in his first five years as a writer , remaine d constan t fo r th e res t o f hi s career . Ther e wer e preliminary exposition s o f the situation, no excursions into the characters' past, or similar introductions to the narrative - i t always began instantly. It is the characters who create the action, and there is no explanation or, more

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

ALEXANDER CHUDAKO V

accurately, exposition, as to the causes of these actions. As Chekhov wrote: 'Characters mus t be introduced i n the middle of a conversation s o that the reader ha s th e impressio n the y hav e bee n talkin g fo r som e time ' (Works, vol. rv, p. 359). The avoidanc e o f extended authoria l comment , a s well as the famou s Chekhovia n evocatio n o f landscape , ar e als o traceabl e t o hi s early work. Equally, many of the distinctive features o f his dramatic works have th e sam e 'humorous ' genealogy , suc h a s rando m o r meaningles s remarks throug h mutua l misunderstandings , an d s o on . Thus , i t i s no t a character's biograph y o r som e universal 'problem ' tha t furnishe s th e basi s of a comic story, but invariabl y som e quite specific everyda y disagreemen t or situation. For example, a character finds himself i n the wrong place (the hen-house instea d o f th e dacha) , o r i s mistake n fo r somebod y els e ( a swindler is taken for a doctor). Such mishaps occur all the time in everyday life an d a comic story cannot exist in isolation from them . No matter ho w profound o r sharply satirical the content may be (in, for example , 'Fat and Thin', 'Th e Deat h o f a Clerk ' (1883) , ' A Chameleon ' (1884) , hi s comi c stories are always developed out of an entirely concrete situation. In his late prose, Chekhov focussed o n more complex socio-psychological problems, bu t agai n the y wer e neve r mad e explici t o r centra l t o th e plot . The plo t neve r revolve d aroun d suc h a problem , a s i s th e cas e wit h Dostoyevsky. O r aroun d a character's life-stor y a s in Turgenev o r Gonch arov. A s wit h th e earlie r works , th e basi s o f th e narrativ e i s alway s furnished b y some particular circumstance s o f everyday life . It could eve n be sai d tha t ever y proble m i s resolve d agains t a particula r backgroun d drawn from everyday life. But that is not quite accurate: everyday life is not the background , th e backdro p t o th e scene ; it lies a t the very heart o f the plot, i s interwove n wit h it . Th e her o o f a comi c stor y i s steepe d i n th e material world . H e canno t exis t o r b e presente d outsid e thi s world . I n Chekhov's storie s h e i s depicte d i n a bathhouse , a hospital , a railwa y carriage, a horse-drawn tram . H e i s depicte d whil e fishin g - o r retrievin g orange peel from a decanter. Circumstantial detai l permeates Chekhov' s late prose as much a s it does his comi c stories . Character s meditat e an d philosophis e whil e bathing , riding in a carriage or doing the rounds at a clinic, breaking off to deal with some mundane trifle or other. Every characte r i n th e comi c stories , whethe r a clerk , telegraphist , reporter, acto r wit h a provincia l company , o r gues t i n som e chea p hotel , invariably ha s som e problem t o dea l with: how to ge t to a dacha, ho w t o get t o slee p whe n th e next-doo r o r upstair s neighbour s ar e playin g th e piano o r wailing abou t ho w to retrieve thei r ow n ne w boot s i n return fo r the worn-out one s that they took by mistake. Perhaps suc h characters help

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Dr Chekhov: a biographical essay to revea l th e tigh t bond s betwee n peopl e an d th e object s tha t surroun d them and so lead Chekhov to the conclusion that everyone is bound b y his or her material environment an d can never break free from it , and that this is the onl y wa y t o portra y people . Chekhov' s comi c sketche s alway s tak e some fragmen t o f life , wit h n o beginnin g o r end , an d simpl y offe r i t fo r inspection. And don't his later works follow the same pattern, beginning 'in the middle ' an d endin g 'wit h nothing' ? Th e ne w artisti c worl d tha t Chekhov created , th e worl d o f 'Th e Duel ' (1891) , 'Th e Hous e wit h a Mezzanine', 'Th e Bishop ' (1902) , give s n o indicatio n o f it s humorou s antecedents, but even so, the debt is considerable. In Moscow the Chekhovs lived in poverty (sometime s with all six adults and childre n cramme d int o on e room) . Fo r th e summer s the y wen t t o Voskresensk, outsid e Moscow (no w called Istra), where Chekhov's brothe r Ivan wa s principa l o f a schoo l an d ha d a flat. Fo r thre e summer s (1885-87), Chekho v an d th e family staye d i n the villag e o f Babkino , no t far fro m Voskresensk , wher e Chekho v worke d i n th e loca l clinic . Hi s impressions o f lif e an d natur e i n th e countrysid e aroun d Mosco w ar e reflected i n many o f hi s shor t stories , such a s 'Th e Conspirator' , ' A Dead Body' (1885), 'Children' (1889), or 'The Kiss' (1887). February 188 6 wa s a landmar k i n Chekhov' s literar y career : hi s wor k began to be published i n one o f the most prestigious an d popula r Russia n newspapers, Novoye vremya (New Time). Th e offer , unrestricte d b y volume an d terms , cam e fro m th e owne r an d managin g editor , Alexe y Suvorin. Within two months Novoye vremya had published 'Offic e fo r th e Dead', 'Th e Enemies' (1887) , 'Agafia' , ' A Nightmare' (1886) , 'Easter Eve ' (1886) - al l ranked amongs t Chekhov' s bes t shor t stories. 9 'Th e five short stories, published in Novoye vremya caused a commotion in St. Petersburg' (Works, vol . I, p. 242). The eminen t write r Dimitr i Grigorovic h wrot e t o congratulate him. There were material benefit s too : the money for th e first story from Novoye vremya was more money than he could earn in a month from th e journa l Fragments. 1886 wa s th e yea r o f Chekhov' s greates t productivity: he wrote more than a hundred works, and his first collection, entitled Motley Tales, appeared i n print . Prio r t o this , h e ha d onl y on e small collectio n o f si x storie s publishe d i n 1884 , which appeare d unde r a pseudonym.10 Then in 1887 Chekhov wrote his first play, Ivanov. Chekhov's collaboration with Novoye vremya continued through the late 18 80s t o th e earl y 1890s , strengthenin g hi s friendshi p wit h Suvorin, 11 whose aestheti c view s h e value d ver y highly . Fo r hi s part , Suvori n love d Chekhov an d alway s helpe d hi m i n har d times . The 33 7 survivin g letter s Chekhov wrot e t o Suvori n ove r th e perio d 1886-190 3 ar e th e mos t fascinating o f al l hi s epistolary writings . In 189 1 an d 189 4 the y travelle d

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

ALEXANDER CHUDAKO V

abroad together. Suvorin published th e first short story collection, At Dusk (1887), an d i t wa s partl y du e t o Suvorin' s enthusiasti c backin g tha t th e book wa s awarde d th e Pushki n Prize . It wa s als o Suvori n wh o publishe d Short Stories (1888) , Gloomy People (1890) , Motley Tales (1891 ) an d Plays (1897), all of which were then reprinted severa l times. A rift i n their relations occurre d afte r th e Dreyfu s Case , o n which Suvorin' s pape r too k an extreme nationalist stand. 12 The lat e 1880 s an d earl y 1890 s sa w a blossomin g o f Chekhov' s talent . New collections o f his stories appeared , an d h e was awarde d th e Pushki n Prize, as noted above . His vaudeville s The Bear (1888) an d The Proposal (1888-9) wer e staged b y both professional an d amateu r companie s in , for example, Kazan , Kaluga , Kostroma , Novocherkassk , Simbirsk , Revel , Tiflis, Tomsk , Tula , Yaroslav . Chekhov' s fam e grew , an d hi s first majo r story, 'The Steppe', was reviewed in dozens of papers across the country. At th e ver y heigh t o f hi s succes s a s a short-stor y write r an d dramatist , Chekhov mad e hi s journe y t o Sakhali n - 'i t wa s a plac e o f th e mos t unbearable sufferin g tha t coul d ever befall a man, whether captiv e o r free ' (Works, vol. rv, p. 32). 13 For a time, Chekhov wa s spared th e necessity of working o n th e verg e o f th e impossible , suc h a s completing, whil e sittin g his medical exams, a hundred storie s a year - a task he had set for himself. By 'reading , lookin g aroun d an d listening , ther e i s much t o lear n an d t o discover . . . Besides , I believ e thi s trip , si x month s o f uninterrupte d physical and intellectual labour, is absolutely necessary for me, because my Ukrainian lazines s has starte d t o sho w of late. It's high time for m e to get back int o training ' (Works, vol . IV, p . 31). Thi s 'training ' continue d throughout hi s life , an d i s th e outstandin g characteristi c o f thi s mos t accomplished self-taught writer . The tri p t o Sakhali n wa s bese t wit h th e mos t enormou s difficulties . Chekhov ha d t o trave l righ t acros s Siberia , includin g 4,00 0 kilometre s i n horse-drawn vehicles . Within thre e month s o f hi s arrival , workin g o n his own, Chekho v ha d mad e a complet e censu s o f th e Sakhali n population , filling i n over 8,000 reference cards. He spoke literally to each one, in their homes o r i n thei r priso n cells . In 189 5 hi s book , The Island of Sakhalin, was published . Impression s o f th e tri p wer e als o incorporate d i n storie s such a s 'Gusev ' (1890) , 'Peasan t Women ' (1891) , 'I n Exile ' (1894 ) an d 'Murder' (1895) . Afte r Sakhalin , Chekho v bega n t o writ e suc h philoso phical storie s a s 'Duel ' (1891 ) an d 'War d No.6 ' (1892) , questionin g th e meaning o f life , deat h an d immortality . Throughou t hi s lif e Chekho v engaged in matters that were not directly related to literature: he organised relief fo r th e famine-stricke n provinces , practise d a s a docto r an d buil t schools. Thes e activitie s increase d notabl y afte r Marc h 189 2 whe n h e

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Dr Chekhov: a biographical essay bought th e Melikhovo estate , not far fro m Moscow . In 189 2 and 189 3 he ran a free medica l centr e o n the estat e i n response t o a cholera epidemic . Where previously his medical practice had been occasional, now he treated more than 1,50 0 patient s i n two years. Thus he extended th e range o f his experience. Living i n th e country , Chekho v no t onl y practise d medicine , bu t als o personally financed the construction o f three schools in the neighbourhood and served as a member o f the examination board . He also participated i n all loca l affairs , makin g n o distinctio n betwee n majo r o r mino r issues , whether fighting the choler a epidemic , diggin g wells , buildin g road s - o r opening a post office a t the railway station. 'It would be great if each of us left behin d a school , a wel l o r somethin g o f tha t kin d s o tha t one' s lif e wouldn't vanis h int o eternit y withou t trace ' (Works, vol. xvn, p. 70). His impressions o f Melikhov o ar e reflecte d i n suc h majo r work s a s 'Peasants ' (1897), 'In the Cart' (1897), 'New Villa' (1899) and 'In the Ravine' (1900). Chekhov entertained man y guests at Melikhovo: the famous artis t Isaak Levitan, th e acto r Pave l Svobodin ; th e writer s Ignati y Potapenko , Iva n Leontiev-Shcheglov an d Vladimi r Nemirovich-Danchenk o (shortl y t o co found th e Mosco w Ar t Theatre) , an d Alexe y Suvorin . Amon g th e guest s there were always young ladies. By nature Chekho v wa s ver y reticent , an d s o littl e i s known abou t hi s relations wit h women . H e ha d hi s first sexua l experienc e a t th e ag e o f fourteen wit h a Greek woman, and his affair wit h a n Indian girl in Ceylon is know n onl y becaus e h e wrot e abou t i t i n on e o f hi s letters . Hi s complicated relationshi p wit h Yevdoki a Efro s laste d fo r a year-and-a-half . Chekhov eve n referred t o her a s his fiancee and th e episode i s reflected i n the relationship betwee n Ivano v and Sara h in Ivanov. No less complicated an affair wa s the one Chekhov had with 'beautiful Lika' , Lidia Mizinova, a friend o f hi s sister , Mari a Chekhova , an d late r o f th e whol e Chekho v family (echoe s o f this affai r ar e found i n The Seagull). Hi s affai r wit h th e actress Lydia Yavorskaya wa s turbulent, bu t brief . During Chekhov' s trip s from Melikhov o t o Mosco w h e wa s ofte n see n i n th e compan y o f ladie s from Moscow's 'bohemian' artistic circles. Once Chekho v wa s establishe d a s a seriou s write r th e mai n criticis m levelled at him was his lack of a central idea, a clear-cut outlook, a unifying theme. Thi s criticis m wa s bes t expresse d b y Mikhailovsky, wh o wrot e i n 1890: 'Chekhov treats everything equally: a man and his shadow, a bluebell and a suicide . . . Here oxe n ar e bein g drive n an d ther e th e pos t i s being delivered . . . her e a ma n i s strangle d an d ther e peopl e ar e drinkin g champagne.'14 Beginning wit h th e story , 'Th e Steppe' , almos t al l o f Chekhov' s work s

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

ALEXANDER CHUDAKO V

were criticise d fo r thei r lac k o f a clear-cu t structure ; fo r thei r exces s o f incidental an d irrelevant detai l tha t impeded the flow of the narrative. For many years , h e continue d t o b e criticise d fo r hi s rando m sequenc e o f episodes whic h mad e i t impossibl e 't o gras p th e overal l picture' . Critic s called int o questio n hi s narrative pattern s i n the shor t stories , the absenc e of extende d introductions , o f definit e conclusions , o f th e elaboratel y detailed pre-historie s fo r hi s characters , o r clear-cu t motive s fo r thei r actions. Particularly annoyin g wa s th e tota l absenc e o f a n authoria l view . Thus Chekhov' s innovativ e descriptiv e styl e was considered a violation of traditional canons of fiction writing, and parallels were drawn between him and ne w European artist s suc h a s the Impressionists. Bu t in general, fro m the earl y 1890s , bot h critic s an d reader s bega n increasingl y t o singl e ou t Chekhov fro m th e majority o f his literary contemporaries . Onl y Vsevolod Garshin an d Vladimi r Korolenk o and , amongs t younge r writers , Maxi m Gorky, were ranked with him. More an d more, critics ranked Chekho v on a leve l wit h th e Russia n classica l writer s - Nikola i Gogol , Iva n Turgene v and Lev Tolstoy. Recognition o f Chekhov' s dram a wa s equall y belated . The Seagull, premiered o n 1 7 October 189 6 at the Alexandrinsky Theatr e i n St Petersburg, was a flop. The author wa s deeply upset b y its failure an d that nigh t said t o Suvorin : 'Eve n i f I live for anothe r 70 0 years , I'l l stil l no t offe r a single play to the theatre . . . I'm a failure i n this sphere.' 15 But the reason for its failure was Chekhov's innovative dramatic technique, which was not understood unti l 189 8 when the 'theatr e o f the new century', th e Moscow Art Theatre , stage d it s hugel y successfu l production s o f The Seagull, an d subsequently all Chekhov's other plays. 16 Following th e MAT productions, Chekhov' s fam e entere d a new phase. His play s wer e produce d acros s th e Russia n Empire . Each successiv e ne w work was a literary an d theatrical event. From 189 9 onwards, articles and reviews of his works appeared in the Russian press almost every day (up to 300 articles a year). Books devoted to Chekhov began to be published both in Russia an d abroa d (abou t te n suc h book s were publishe d i n Chekhov' s lifetime). How did he react to his fame? H e objected t o the clamour an d to the incessant demand s tha t wer e mad e o f him , bu t i n private h e had hig h self-esteem, h e kne w hi s wort h an d wa s full y awar e o f hi s positio n i n Russian literature. From 1897 , Chekhov's health deteriorate d rapidl y a s tuberculosis bega n to take hold. As a doctor, Chekhov knew that his way of life had to change, but h e persiste d i n workin g himsel f int o th e ground . Hi s doctor s recom mended that he move to Yalta, so he sold the Melikhovo estate and went to the Crimea, where he spent the last five years o f his life. In those times he

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Dr Chekhov: a biographical essay wrote suc h masterpiece s a s ' A Lad y wit h a Littl e Dog' , 'I n th e Ravine' , Three Sisters (1900-1) , 'Th e Bishop ' (1902 ) an d The Cherry Orchard (1903-4). Bu t Chekho v di d no t lik e Yalt a wit h it s palm-tree s an d idl e tourists. He loved the countryside of Central Russia, and he loved Moscow. Nevertheless, h e bough t a plo t o f lan d an d buil t a lovel y house . Bu t th e house had on e serious defect , particularl y fo r a sick man: in winter i t was cold. Th e winte r climat e i n Yalt a i s bad , wit h frequen t col d winds . Chekhov ha d alway s fel t a n affinit y wit h nature , a dependence o n it wit h the season s o f th e yea r markin g importan t phase s i n hi s life . Rain , snow , any change in the weather was as equal in importance to him as his literary or public affairs . I n his letters references t o work ar e regularly interrupte d by such observations as : 'it has started to snow' or, as he wrote to both his wife and his sister in Autumn 1902 : 'big news - i t rained at night'. (Letters, vol. xi, p. 41). There was another reason why Chekhov disliked Yalta, and, indeed, why it seeme d lik e a priso n t o him : h e ha d becom e involve d wit h th e MA T actress, Olg a Knipper , an d i n 190 1 h e marrie d her . Knippe r staye d i n Moscow, performin g a t th e MAT , while Chekho v coul d no t visi t ther e a s often a s he wished: 'It i s neither m y fault no r yours that w e are separated , but the demons who planted th e bacillus in me and the love of ar t in you' (Works, vol . ix, p . 124) . Nevertheless , h e misse d he r dreadfull y an d hi s letters ar e ful l o f complaint s an d request s fo r he r t o come , whic h wer e echoed b y hi s friend s an d acquaintances . Thus , th e directo r an d write r Leopold Sulerzhitsk y wrote to Knipper: 'Anto n Pavlovich needs you. He is suffocating withi n hi s fou r walls . Yo u mustn' t forge t tha t h e no t onl y belongs to you, but he is also a great writer and you should come and visit him, for you are the one person who can cheer him up and help restore his health which is vital for everybody, for Russian literature, for Russia.' 17 In Yalta Chekhov missed the literary milieu and his friends, althoug h old and new acquaintances helpe d to relieve his isolation: writers suc h as Ivan Bunin, Maxi m Gorky , Alexande r Kupri n an d Nikola i Teleshev ; th e oper a singer Fyodo r Chaliapi n an d th e compose r Serge i Rakhmaninov. I n April 1900, th e MA T made a special visi t t o Yalt a t o perfor m Chekhov' s play s for him. In spit e o f worsenin g health , Chekho v stil l engage d i n publi c an d charitable activities in Yalta, giving money to build schools and clinics, and writing a n appea l fo r hel p fo r tubercula r patient s whic h wa s reprinte d in man y paper s an d magazine s acros s Russia . I n 190 2 Chekho v an d Korolenko gave up the title of Honorary Academician in protest at the Tsar's decision t o rejec t th e electio n o f Gork y t o th e Academy , a s inadmissabl e on political grounds .

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

ALEXANDER CHUDAKO V

On th e occasio n o f th e premier e o f Chekhov' s las t play , The Cherry Orchard in January 1904 , Moscow honoured its much-loved writer, but by that tim e he was so ill he could barely stand. The celebration seeme d more like a farewell . B y the summe r Chekhov' s healt h wa s eve n wors e an d h e and hi s wife wen t t o th e sp a o f Badenweile r i n German y fo r th e cure . He died ther e o n 1 5 July . Righ t t o th e end , h e remaine d courageousl y composed. In enumeratin g Chekhov' s achievement s throughou t hi s life , on e migh t take hi m fo r a publi c figure . H e practise d medicine ; organise d ai d fo r famine-stricken provinces ; ra n a medica l statio n durin g th e choler a epi demic; built schools and hospitals; donated to public libraries; made public appeals fo r aid , an d personall y helpe d hundred s o f peopl e i n nee d an d misfortune. H e wrot e article s o n socia l an d politica l subjects , an d a book about th e priso n islan d o f Sakhalin , t o whic h h e ha d undertake n a n arduous journe y righ t acros s Siberia . Al l o f thi s wa s don e b y a ma n wh o was alway s plague d b y ill-health . An d a t th e sam e tim e h e wa s engage d constantly i n th e mos t titani c literar y labour , writin g a ne w pag e i n th e artistic history of the world. NOTES Titles of the stories are generally fro m Ronal d Hingley' s The Oxford Chekhov or Ronal d Wilks ' Pengui n edition s i n fou r volumes , t o enabl e non-Russia n speaking readers to findmany of the stories in English. See Appendix I. 1 Unles s otherwis e specified , th e references t o Works and Letters are from N . F . Belchikov and others, eds., Anton Chekhov, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem v 301 totnakh, Moscow , 1974-8 3 (Anton Chekhov, Collected Works and Letters in 30 Volumes, Moscow, 1974-83). 2 M . P. Chekhov, Around Chekhov, in Memoirs, Moscow, 1981, p. 32 . 3 Nikola i Vuchina , the eccentric headmaste r o f the Greek school , who seems to have taught largely through torture (suc h as a form o f crucifixion, lashin g boys to th e window shutters) , unlik e mor e usua l pedagogues . Certainl y Anto n and his elder brothe r Nichola s left afte r a year without learnin g any Greek, except for a few swear words. 4 Serge i Aksako v (1791-1859) , membe r o f the dynasty o f a famous Slavophil e Russian family . H e came t o writin g lat e i n life , an d was renowned fo r the unique wor k Notes on Fishing (1847), an d Notes of a Hunter of Orenburg Province (1852) , bot h remarkabl e fo r thei r systemati c descriptio n o f ever y detail. He was also the author of the 'fictional' Family Chronicle (1856) , based on his own despotic landowning family. Mikhail Prishvin (1873-1954), prose writer, whose stories are like Aksakov's in thei r mi x of scienc e an d poetry i n describing nature . Hi s works hav e bee n called 'verba l landscapes ' an d recor d meticulousl y th e chang e o f seasons , climate, an d effect o f tim e o n nature, an d the animal s o f Norther n Russia . Courageously Prishvi n use d Peter the Great's orde r to carry overlan d hi s great

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Dr Chekhov: a biographical essay fleet fro m th e White Se a to the Balti c as a metaphor fo r Stalin' s use o f force d labour i n buildin g th e Baltic-Whit e Se a Cana l i n 1933 . The huma n cos t ca n never really be known. Alexander Chudakov's point here relates to descriptions of nature which even now is changing and in some cases disappearing. 5 Pabl o de Sarasate (y Navascuez), 1844-1908. 6 A . Ismailov, Chekhov: 1860-11)04. Life, Persona, Work, Moscow, 1916, p. 62. 7 G . A. Byaly, Late 19th Century Russian Realism, Leningrad, 1973 , p. 159. 8 N . Mikhailovsky, 'Literature and Life', Russkoe bogatstvo 6, 1897, p. 121. 9 Fo r the origina l Russia n title s o f thes e an d th e othe r storie s mentione d i n this chapter, see the list of variations of English titles from the Russian (Appendix 1). 10 Chekhov' s pen-name s o r pseudonym s range d fro m 'M y brother' s brother ' t o 'A. Chekhonte' and other comic names. 11 Alexe y Sergeyevic h Suvorin , wealth y owne r an d publishe r o f Noveye vretnya (New Time), and Chekhov' s first real publisher, wh o als o becam e a friend fo r many years. Their friendship survive d Chekhov's move to the more progressive Russkaya mysl (Russian Thought), edited b y Vukol Lavrov , an d eve n survive d their vehementl y oppose d view s ove r th e Dreyfu s Affair . The y disagree d als o over the row created b y the rejection o f Gorky , o n the order s o f the Tsar, as a proposed Honorar y Academicia n whe n th e Academy refuse d hi m membershi p on politica l ground s - an d bot h Chekho v an d Korolenk o resigne d i n protest . Suvorin too k a characteristically reactionar y approac h t o both thes e and othe r major politica l event s an d issues . Man y o f Chekhov' s mos t importan t letter s were written to Suvorin, for whom he felt personal loyalty even when politically opposed. Suvorin died in 1912. 12 Th e Dreyfu s Case , in which Dreyfus , a n innocen t Frenc h Jewish arm y officer , was accuse d o f treason , an d th e tria l becam e a cause cel'ebre throughou t Europe. Dreyfu s wa s foun d guilty , sentence d t o exil e an d pena l servitud e o n Devil's Island , an d woul d hav e die d ha d i t no t bee n for th e publi c suppor t of Emile Zola , wh o accuse d th e Frenc h arm y an d governmen t o f anti-Semitism . Reactions to the case were sharply divided across Europe between the reactionaries wh o assume d Dreyfus ' guilt , an d th e progressive s wh o insiste d o n hi s innocence. 13 Th e islan d o f Sakhali n wa s a Russia n prison-island , nea r th e coas t o f Japan , comparable i n functio n an d purpos e t o th e Frenc h Devil' s Island , t o whic h Dreyfus wa s sent , an d - mor e recentl y - Sout h Africa' s Robbi n Islan d wher e Nelson Mandel a an d othe r politica l prisoner s wer e held . Chekhov' s journey , made at great personal risk given the subsequent effect o n his health, produce d a book which did influence an d achieve some penal reform. Th e book, titled in the English edition, The Island, A Journey to Sakhalin, trans. Luba and Michael Terpak, London , 1987 , appeare d i n Russian , German , French , bu t i n Englis h only in 1987. The edition above has an introduction b y the major Russia n poet, Irena Ratushinskaya , wh o puts the work i n its humanist, pragmatic , but nonetheless historicall y limited , perspective . A t th e presen t time , th e islan d o f Sakhalin an d othe r island s i n tha t are a ar e stil l a sourc e o f territoria l disput e between Japa n an d wha t i s no w th e recentl y forme d an d name d Russia n Federation. 14 Literary Critique, Moscow, 1957, p. 606.

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

ALEXANDER CHUDAKO V

15 M . Krichevsky , ed . an d foreword , A. S. Suvorin's Diary, Moscow-Petrograd, 192.3, P - 12.5 .

16 Se e chapters 3 and 1 4 in this volume for detaile d accounts of these productions. For an account o f the negative aspect s of Chekhov's plays in production a t the MAT, se e chapte r 5 , 'Stanislavsk y an d Chekhov' , i n Edwar d Braun , The Director and the Stage, London, 1982 , pp . 59-76 ; an d chapte r 3 , 'Mosco w Nights', in Laurence Senelick, The Chekhov Theatre -A Century of the Flays in Ferformance, Cambridge, 1997. 17 Olg a Leonardovn a Knipper-Chekhova , Correspondence: I8<)6-I<)5<) (Par t 2) , Moscow, 1972, pp. 30-1.

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

EMMA POLOTSKAY A

Chekhov an d hi s Russia

The geographica l setting s i n Chekhov' s literatur e ar e extensive : hi s char acters ar e foun d i n smal l villages ; i n provincia l towns ; o n a nobleman' s estate; in the two 'capitals ' - Mosco w an d St . Petersburg; in the Caucasu s and th e Crimea , Siberi a an d Sakhalin . Ther e ar e als o endles s road s an d numerous encounter s o n countr y lanes , tracks o n the steppe , and encoun ters in railway stations and on trains. No les s divers e is the socia l world populate d b y his characters: intellectuals, merchants , peasants , landlords , shepherds , fishermen, firemen, military o f al l rank s an d civi l servant s o f al l grades, 1 policeme n an d thieves , actors and scholars, students, doctors, teachers, lawyers and clergymen - of different generations , ages, levels of education and culture. But the geographical dimension , the social backgrounds an d profession s are not as important as Russia's inner state and the way this shapes people's individual destinies . The purpose o f this chapter is precisely to explore this interdependence, whil e th e subjec t ma y b e define d a s 'turn-of-the-centur y Russia' throug h Chekhov' s eye s o r - t o pu t i t anothe r wa y - 'Chekhov' s images o f Russia' . Thi s interdependenc e i s explore d fro m a variet y o f perspectives: th e vastnes s o f Russia' s territor y an d th e abundanc e o f it s nature a s th e Russians ' existentia l context , an d Russi a i n th e context s o f the world, and of the universe. Chekhov's judgements are never categorical or blunt, just as the symbolic 'images' of Russia ar e never unequivocal, and reflect th e complexitie s an d controversies , th e combinatio n o f ligh t an d darkness, goo d an d evil , tha t typif y th e Russia n wa y o f lif e an d Russia n sensibilities at that time. An example of Chekhov's complex perceptions o f Russia ar e his feelings about th e sout h o f th e countr y wher e h e wa s born , combinin g deepl y personal an d emotiona l impression s wit h objective , unprejudice d observa tions. In 1887 Chekhov, already a popular autho r o f short stories, revisited his home town of Taganrog. His impressions of local customs and manners, found i n hi s letters , ar e ful l o f irony . Havin g live d i n Mosco w fo r seve n

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

EMMA POLOTSKAY A

years, h e foun d man y o f th e loca l custom s alie n an d eve n detestable : th e lack o f culture , th e idl e tal k o f th e philistine s wh o 'onl y eat , drink , bree d and hav e n o othe r interests ' (Letters, vol . n , pp . 54-84). 2 Bu t beneat h thi s irony i s a touchin g an d uncynica l admiratio n fo r th e charmin g sounds , colours an d smell s o f th e Souther n lifestyle : musi c i n th e cit y par k an d th e smell o f lilac s an d acacias , bu t mos t o f al l th e 'littl e hillocks , kites , lark s and blu e vistas ' o f th e Do n Steppe . A distinc t memor y o f hi s childhoo d experiences i s expressed i n th e stor y 'Th e Steppe ' (1888) 3 a s the imag e o f a 'beautiful, ster n motherland' (Works, vol . vn, p . 46). In th e 1880 s th e write r whos e childhoo d wa s spen t i n thi s setting , wa s faced wit h quit e a differen t realit y - depressin g an d ominous . Havin g finished wor k o n 'Th e Steppe' , Chekho v wrot e t o Dmitr i Grigorovic h about hi s realisatio n o f th e fundamenta l hostilit y t o ma n o f Russia' s vas t expanses: On th e on e hand , ther e i s physica l weakness , nervousness , earl y sexua l maturity, passionate desir e to live and find the truth, dream s of work which, like th e Steppe , hav e n o boundaries ; edg y analysi s an d lac k o f knowledg e combined wit h th e irrepressibl e flight of thought ; an d o n th e othe r han d endlessly flat land, sever e climate, a grey and severe nation with its hard and cold history, the Tatar yoke, bureaucracy, poverty , ignorance, rain y capitals, Slavic apathy, and so forth . . . Russian life beat s the soul out o f the Russian . . . I n Wester n Europ e peopl e di e becaus e thei r spac e i s crampe d an d suffocating. I n Russia they die because the space is an endless expanse. (Letters, vol. n, p. 190) 4 It seem s thi s imag e o f Russi a i s quit e differen t fro m th e beautiful mother land o f 'Th e Steppe' . Chekho v ha d foun d a rational e whic h h e expresse d through artisti c intuitio n i n his short storie s 'Th e Witch', an d 'O n th e Way ' ('Na puti' , 1886) , wher e fros t an d snowstorm s becom e symbol s o f restles s souls or the spirit. The onl y common threa d i n his letter t o Grigorovic h an d these storie s i s th e conflic t betwee n th e 'passionat e desir e t o liv e an d find the truth ' - an d man' s impotenc e i n suc h a vas t an d col d space. 5 Althoug h these word s abou t th e col d wer e writte n b y a southerner , bor n nea r th e warm sea , the y ech o th e widesprea d Europea n perceptio n o f Russi a a s a cold country . (Wa s thi s perhap s th e reaso n wh y i n th e Britis h premier e o f The Cherry Orchard, th e actors wore fur coat s and fu r caps? ) Chekhov himsel f nearl y froz e t o deat h i n Siberi a i n 1890 , an d i n th e Nizhni Novgoro d provinc e i n 1892 , s o th e moti f o f a col d climat e destroying th e huma n physiqu e an d psych e i s no t accidenta l i n hi s works . 'In thi s climat e on e expect s i t t o sno w a t an y time , an d no w al l thi s philosophising' (Works, vol . XIII , p . 178) . These line s o f Masha' s i n Three Sisters contai n a subtext , suggestin g th e dreadfu l ambienc e i n th e house , 18 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov and his Russia dominated b y th e heartles s rationalist , Natasha . Thi s atmospher e i s a s unbearable a s apprehension of the cold winter which will soon come in the Urals - a s Chekho v wrote , th e actio n o f th e pla y i s se t 'i n a provincia l town, like Perm' (Letters, vol. ix, p. 133). Having move d t o th e sout h o f th e Crime a i n th e lat e 1890s , bu t stil l possessed by the memories of Melikhovo, the splendour o f central Russian winters, th e jo y o f sledgin g i n th e abundan t an d pur e Russia n snow , Chekhov returns to the problem of Russian destin y in the endless expanses of the country. In the short story, 'On Official Business ' (1899), he portrays a low-grad e countr y policeman , subservientl y engage d i n meaningles s paperwork, agains t the backdrop o f a snowstorm. As a member himself of the Serpukhov Sanitation (Health ) Council, Chekhov knew such policemen who, fo r thirt y years , ha d timidl y endure d th e pett y tyrann y o f loca l administrators. Th e protagonis t i n Chekhov' s story , investigato r Lyzhin , watches th e snowstor m an d think s h e see s th e littl e policema n walkin g hand-in-hand with the dead insurance agent, whose failure to cope with the pressures o f hars h realit y ha d drive n hi m t o suicide . In Lyzhin's min d th e old policeman, of peasant stock , and the bygone intellectual, are merged in the singl e imag e o f a hardworkin g man , breakin g hi s bac k unde r th e burden whic h ough t t o b e carrie d b y societ y a s a whole . An d th e protagonist has feelings of guilt about such vulnerable people. References to the harsh image of the 'cold' motherland a s an ideal milieu for the bureaucratic state are found i n Chekhov's two aphorisms: 'Russia is a bureaucrati c country ' (Works, vol . xvn, p . 167) , an d 'Russi a i s a vas t plain acros s whic h a dashin g horsema n recklessl y rides ' (ibid). The latte r aphorism wa s echoe d b y th e eminen t statesma n Konstanti n Pobedono tsev6, wh o als o sai d tha t 'Russi a i s a n ic y deser t acros s whic h a dashin g horseman roams'. 7 I t i s no t know n wh o firs t use d th e epithe t 'icy' wit h reference to Russia, but it matches perfectly Chekhov' s general image of his homeland. The 'daring ' o f th e Russia n bring s u s bac k t o th e issu e o f unrealise d individual aspirations . Wher e i s th e daring , dashin g horsema n ridin g s o recklessly? Thi s questio n als o relates t o Gogol' s proverbia l compariso n o f Russia a s 'th e troik a swif t a s a bird' , an d t o Gogol' s rhetorica l question : 'Russia, whithe r d o you fly?'. 8 The concept o f man's conflict wit h Russia' s vast expanse s i s linke d i n Chekhov' s min d wit h th e proble m o f suicid e which, b y the en d o f th e las t century , ha d becom e almos t commonplace , especially amongs t th e young . (Treplev' s attempt s an d suicid e i n The Seagull are relevant here.) Another scourg e of society which concerned Chekho v was the psychological diseas e know n a s a 'persecutio n complex' , whic h flourished i n th e

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

EMMA POLOTSKAY A

fertile soi l of Russian police terror an d outrages, causing the people to live in constan t fea r o f arrest , an d of administrativ e o r crimina l punishment . Such a persecution comple x damage d th e mind o f the refined intellectual , Ivan Gromov. Seeing shackled convicts in the street, escorted by guards, he convinces himself tha t this will happen to him, and he ends up in a lunatic asylum. The story 'War d No.6' (1892 ) came as a real shock to the reading public. Chekhov's most terrifying 'experiment ' i n the aesthetic exploratio n of Russian societ y resulted in the exposure of yet another aspec t of Russia: 'Ward No . 6 ' becam e a metapho r fo r th e countr y a s a whole . Th e paradoxical moti f o f th e claustrophobi a o f Russia' s vas t expans e i n Chekhov's lette r t o Grigorovich acquire d literal meaning in 'Ward No. 6'. The actio n i s set in an enclosed space , cut off fro m th e rest o f the world, and th e ward i n the clinic looks lik e a prison-cell. Dr Ragin identifie s the clinic wit h the prison, whic h can be seen from th e window, an d comes to the conclusion: 'This is reality' (Works, vol. VIII, p. 121). The only way to escape it is to die. So Ragin dies. The sens e o f 'War d No . 6 ' a s th e symbo l o f a feuda l Russi a whic h represses huma n freedom , wa s shared b y the painter Ily a Repin , an d the writer Nikola i Leskov : '"War d No . 6" is everywhere . . . This i s Russia ' (Works, vol. VIII, p. 458). And Vladimir Lenin confessed tha t when he was young, he was terrified b y the story, as though he himself wa s locked in the ward with madmen. It wa s later tha t Chekho v becam e intereste d i n man's reactio n t o suc h grim realities . An d h e discovere d tha t horro r a t th e prospec t o f bein g imprisoned ofte n result s in transference int o the desire to see others jailed. This motif firs t appeare d in the early short storie s suc h as 'Cases of Mania Grandioza' (1883 ) o r 'Sergean t Prishibeyev ' (1885) . Th e onl y wa y suc h people can cope with the fact tha t their reality is a prison is to adapt - and make other s d o the same . Thi s metho d i s used b y the teacher o f Greek , Belikov, i n ' A Har d Case ' (1898) . H e create s hi s ow n microcosm , an d voluntarily imprison s himsel f i n it : a bedroo m tha t look s lik e a 'box' ; window blind s permanentl y closed ; th e habi t o f sleepin g wit h hi s hea d covered by a blanket; and a robe, a cap, things in cases, invariably galoshes and a n umbrella. Th e wretched Beliko v is terrified o f any sign that other s are unwilling to live according to the same rules, and when he dies they put him i n hi s las t cas e - a coffin . Bu t Chekho v leave s hi s readers wit h n o illusions: 'And how many more such men "in their cases " are still around , and ho w many mor e ar e yet t o com e . . .?' (Works, vol . x, p . 53) . The symbol o f th e case , an d th e ma n wh o voluntaril y lock s himsel f i n it , became Chekhov' s wide r metapho r fo r th e grim socia l atmospher e o f the 1880s.

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov and his Russia Such dar k image s o f Russi a hav e a n origina l sourc e and a synonym : Sakhalin. At a time when his knowledge of penal servitude in Sakhalin was limited t o source s fro m 'special ' o r restricte d literature , Chekho v realise d that 'thi s is a place of unbearable suffering' (Letters, vol. rv, p. 32). During his visit to Sakhali n Islan d i n 1890 , Chekho v wa s abl e to obtai n proo f o f his assumptions . Crowd s o f convicts , man y o f the m falsel y condemned , suffered fro m a col d climate , o f whic h Chekho v wrote : 'Thi s i s no t a climate. I t i s the mos t fou l weathe r . . . this islan d i s the foules t plac e i n Russia.' Th e onl y wor d Chekho v use d t o describ e thi s dreadfu l climate , combined with hard labour, was 'hell'. In hi s book , The Island of Sakhalin (1895) , Chekho v expresse d th e hopelessness o f th e convicts ' existence , doome d t o endles s physica l an d moral suffering . Th e worst-of f wer e peopl e lik e th e fratricid e Yako v Terekhov, describe d i n 'Murder ' (1895) , who had no t yet lost his irrepressible longing for freedom . H e had tried to escape many times, was brutally punished, but his soul purified itsel f through suffering an d he acquired fait h in Go d whic h previousl y ha d bee n lackin g fo r him . An d peerin g int o th e distance toward s th e motherland wit h anguis h an d love , he dreams abou t sharing his cruel experiences, even if only with one other person who might therefore b e saved . No matte r wh o h e is, man's sou l i s as multifarious a s Russia itself. In much o f Chekhov's work , Sakhali n becam e the symbol of repression . He onc e observe d tha t al l hi s work s o f th e 1890 s ar e 'Sakhalinize d throughout'.9 Equally, the 'ravine' symbolises the abyss that has swallowed up no t onl y th e villag e o f Ukleyev o bu t th e whol e o f Russia . Thi s imag e was bor n ou t o f Chekhov' s observation s i n Melikhov o (hi s estat e outsid e Moscow), from his close contacts with peasants, merchants and the owners of the nearby factories , depicte d i n the story 'I n the Ravine' (Hingley' s 'I n the Hollow' , 1900) . Th e ravin e i s a dark , unclea n place : 'swamp y mud , even i n summer , foul-smellin g river , pollute d b y factor y waste s . . . shadows whic h th e ol d willow s cas t o n th e hous e an d o n th e courtyard . Darkness outside reflected darknes s in the house and sin loomed like fog in the air ' (Works, x , pp . 144 , 146) . An d th e onl y pur e creature , Lipa , daughter o f a poor widow , i s kep t b y th e ric h famil y a s i f i n a priso n gaining freedom cos t too high a price: the loss of her little son, victim of a family row . Th e stor y end s wit h th e fal l o f darknes s a s th e villag e agai n sinks into the ravine. At the same time, however, the literal sense of 'ravine' remains part of nature. And thus this deep cavity with steep slopes performs another, psychological , functio n i n accentuatin g th e characters ' experi ences. The intelligent Vera Kardina in the story 'In the Home-Stead' (1897), is so horrified b y the landlord' s violen t outburs t a t a peasant gir l tha t sh e

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

EMMA POLOTSKAY A

feels violentl y dragge d bac k decade s t o th e tim e befor e th e abolitio n o f serfdom, an d sh e runs , awa y fro m herself , t o th e ravin e wher e sh e find s peace o f mind . Sh e decide s t o chang e he r lif e an d 'becom e on e wit h th e luxuriant steppe' , with it s beaut y an d vistas . And althoug h thi s offer s he r no persona l happiness , th e functio n o f th e ravin e i n Vera's imaginatio n i s parallel t o th e stepp e i n th e 188 8 stor y o f tha t name : her e to o i s th e embodiment of Russia's endless expanses. In the story 'Peasants' (1897) , the cliff - lik e a ravine it too is associated with steep slopes - i s related to the degradation o f a Russian village which, however, i s seen against th e backdro p o f the beautie s o f rural natur e wit h sunset on the river, the church, the 'soft an d indescribably clean air'. That is how the devout Olga, sitting with her sick husband o n the edge of the cliff, sees the village on the day of their arrival . Her spirit s are not yet darkened by poverty o r thei r relatives ' hostilit y toward s the m a s self-invited guests . And at the end of the story, Olga is again sitting on the edge of the cliff. She has survive d a sever e an d hungr y winter , ha s los t he r husband , bu t sh e admires th e rive r an d th e churc h an d dream s o f ho w sh e wil l retur n t o Moscow. The contras t o f darknes s an d ligh t i n th e symbol s o f natur e echoe s th e differences withi n th e characters , suc h a s th e peasants . Th e derogator y nickname o f 'lackey-land ' give n to the village of Zhukovo is not a general metaphor o f th e country , o r th e nation . Afte r all , th e peasant s wer e no t born lackeys , boors, thieves o r drunks . They acquire d thes e vices throug h living i n unbearabl e conditions , har d labour , povert y an d th e injustic e o f local administrations . Suc h vice s onl y disappea r whe n 'humanitarianism ' and fait h i n Go d tak e over . Lik e Dostoyevsky , Chekho v regarde d th e Russian soul, whether o f a peasant or a landlord, an intellectual or a casual labourer, a s th e receptacl e o f bot h goo d an d evil , strengt h an d weakness , degradation an d rebirth . A s a psychologist , Chekho v particularl y value d moments of insight, and of the sudden awareness of a wasted life. Likewise, the convict s Chekho v me t an d interviewe d o n Sakhali n provide d n o exception. These negative symbols of a rich and multifarious countr y are juxtaposed with the images o f a 'stern an d beautifu l motherland ' i n 'The Steppe' , and Russia a s 'ou r orchard ' (Works, vol . XIII , p . 227 ) i n Chekhov' s las t play , The Cherry Orchard. Amongst othe r symbol s betwee n thes e tw o work s one must include the forest i n Uncle Vanya (1896). It is as beautiful a s the steppe o r th e orchard , an d wit h th e sam e inevitability , i t i s becomin g scarce. Th e fores t an d th e live s o f th e character s ar e vividl y interwoven . The beauty of Sonya's feelings is futile, as are the feminine beauty of Yelena Andreyevna, Astrov's talents and his efforts t o protect the forest, o r Waffle's

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov and his Russia innocence an d naivety . Bu t th e mos t dramati c i s Voinitsky' s (Vanya's ) awareness o f his wasted life, while only the nanny, Marina, with he r quie t simplicity and faith in God, personifies the healthy spirit of the people. In The Seagull, th e lake - a s the natural sceni c setting for Treplev' s play about the distant future o f mankind - bear s the authentic traits o f Russian life: people fish in it, gulls fly over it and living on its banks is a girl (Nina), who dream s o f gettin g ou t o f th e province s t o Mosco w wher e th e 'rea l stage' is . But al l thi s coul d happe n i n an y country : th e nationa l specific s carry universa l meaning . Th e sam e applie s t o th e seagul l symbo l i n th e play. It contain s a variety o f meanings, bot h explici t (reference s t o Nina' s ruined personal life) an d implicit (whe n Treplev says that 'soo n he will kill himself i n the same way as the seagull') (Letters, vol. xm, p. 27). The play contains allegorical references t o art which triumphs over people's personal sufferings; i n a sens e thi s bird , kille d i n 'rea l life' , bu t resurrecte d a s th e symbol of ar t an d th e beaut y o f life , echoe s thos e symbol s o f th e mother land whic h ha s endure d muc h sufferin g i n th e past , ye t stil l remain s a potent source of vitality. Nina's longin g fo r Mosco w reveal s on e furthe r aspec t o f Russi a whic h the artist can see in his favourite city . First there is the Moscow-Petersbur g antonym in Chekhov's works. Moscow is the symbol of Russian statehood , 'the widow in purple' a s Pushkin describe d it in The Bronze Horseman, 'a widow' wh o stoo d aside , overshadowe d b y the ne w capital. But Mosco w turned ou t to be the kind of 'widow' who has not lost interest in the world - o r taste for the joys it offers. Deep in their hearts, the majority o f Russians always preferre d Mosco w t o S t Petersburg . Hospitable , famou s fo r th e promenades along the Sadovoye and Boulevard Circles , with its cosy seven hills an d numerou s churches , Mosco w appeare d mor e homel y t o th e ordinary Russia n tha n S t Petersburg wit h it s Europea n styl e an d planne d avenues. I t wa s no t b y chanc e tha t th e stor y 'Misery ' (1886 ) o f th e ol d drayman an d hi s tragic lonelines s sinc e he lost hi s son , i s enacted agains t the backdrop of cold and indifferent S t Petersburg crowds. Chekhov's stories 10 of human dram a ar e also set in Moscow: such as 'A Dreary Story' (1889), 'Three Years' (1894), or part of 'A Lady with a Little Dog' (1899) . Moscow was more dea r than S t Petersburg to both Chekho v and hi s character s (suc h a s Yartse v an d Kochevo y i n 'Thre e Years') . H e even liked it for its coolness and 'grey misty days'. 11 In Chekhov's writing, departure t o S t Petersbur g i s usuall y relate d t o th e characters ' hope s o f changing the circumstances o f their lives - fo r example , in 'Practical Jokes' (1886), or 'The Artist's Story' (also known as 'The House with a Mezzanine', 1896); o r fo r career s - Docto r Blagov o i n 'M y Life ' (1896) ; an d th e longing for Moscow arises from th e desire 'to start life from scratch ' - a s in 23 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

EMMA POLOTSKAY A

'The Russian Master' (1894). But Chekhov always makes exceptions: in his last shor t story , 'Th e Marriageable Girl ' (1903) , Nadya Shumina , eage r t o start lif e fro m scratch , merel y passe s throug h Mosco w o n he r wa y t o St Petersburg wher e sh e is going to study . I t ma y b e that thi s wa s relate d to Chekhov' s sympathy with the (radical) student movement which was very much alive in St Petersburg over the years 1899-1902. Moscow as the symbol of a desirable new life became central to Chekhov himself throughou t hi s 'exile ' to Yalta, an d i n Three Sisters (1901), this is given the most powerfu l expression . It seems also symbolic, however, tha t the sisters ' drea m doe s not materialise . Th e ver y idea tha t a new life ma y start just by changing places is itself an illusion. And one of the sisters, Irina, who ha s th e opportunit y t o chang e places , doe s no t g o t o Moscow , bu t becomes a teacher and so will be faced with new and unpredictable realities. Chekhov's perception of Moscow as the heart of Russia is also illustrated by th e fac t tha t i n hi s creativ e o r fictiona l meditation s o n th e futur e o f Russia he always thought of Moscow's historical past. The teacher, Yartsev, in 'Three Years', admires the up-and-coming new generation, believing that Russia i s 'on th e eve of a great triumph' , bu t he also says that 'Mosco w is the cit y tha t wil l hav e muc h t o suffer ' (Works, vol . ix , pp . 74 , 75) . Paradoxically, t o prove these words he looks back to the past, to the times of raid s b y nomadi c tribe s o n Russi a a t th e en d o f th e elevent h centur y when Mosco w alread y existed . I t i s suggeste d t o Yartse v tha t h e writ e a play abou t thos e time s fo r th e youn g generation , o f who m h e ha s suc h great expectations . Draftin g a pla y tha t wil l neve r b e written , Yartse v imagines a scen e wit h a capture d Russia n girl , tie d t o th e saddle , wh o watches th e dreadfu l conflic t 'sadl y an d wisely ' - sadnes s an d wisdo m symbolising th e sufferin g o f th e nation , ye t endowe d wit h grea t patienc e and prepared for furthe r ordeals . Thirteen years later, Alexander Blo k also prophesied th e return o f violent times when Russia struggle d against Tatar hordes: 'Yes, I behold you, the beginning /Of gran d an d storm y days ' (my italics-E.P.).12 Chekhov, moreover, did not envisage the future o f Russia as an ascent to 'glorious heights' , althoug h fo r man y year s Sovie t Chekho v scholar s trie d to prove the opposite , referring t o the memoirs o f th e writer's contempor aries, an d th e line s o f som e characters o f hi s plays an d late r shor t stories . Amongst believer s i n a gloriou s futur e ar e Vershini n fro m Three Sisters, Sasha fro m th e stor y 'Th e Marriageabl e Girl' , an d Trofimo v fro m The Cherry Orchard. Chekhov' s iron y i n relatio n t o thes e character s wa s generally ignored , a s wer e thei r eviden t limitations , predilectio n fo r high flown rhetori c and ineffectual personalities . Trofimov's aphoris m 'Al l o f Russi a i s our orchard ' sound s lik e a call t o 24 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov and his Russia work the soil for the future; and when he talks about the land which is 'vast and beautifu l an d wit h s o man y wonderfu l place s i n it' , h e mean s th e Russian land . I t i s wort h pointin g ou t t o non-Russia n speaker s tha t i n Russian ther e i s th e sam e wor d fo r 'land ' an d fo r 'earth' . An d whe n Chekhov dreame d abou t th e 'flowerin g orchard ' whic h wil l come in three or four hundred years, 13 he means the whole of the earth - th e future o f the motherland inseparable from the fortunes o f all mankind. With al l th e limitation s o f Trofimov' s historica l optimism , h e i s b y n o means a professiona l Russia n revolutionary . A s a participan t i n studen t protest marche s (sinc e Chekho v ha d t o compl y wit h th e requirement s o f censorship, he could not make this explicit in the play - bu t he wrote about it in a letter to his wife), Trofimov di d not call for the destruction of the old world, bu t fo r givin g up the old mode o f existence which allowed the fe w to live at the expense of others' labour. Chekhov's characters dream of a 'glorious future' whic h is not connected with revolution (fo r this reason, in the 1920s many critics ranked Chekhov amongst thos e writer s wh o oppose d th e proletaria n revolution) . O n th e other hand, up to the late 1960s , the myth about Chekhov' s revolutionar y views wa s carefull y cultivate d b y officia l theatr e historian s wh o referre d not onl y t o Trofimov' s tirades , bu t als o t o Tuzenbach' s line s abou t th e storm in Three Sisters, claimin g that they echoed Gorky's call for the storm in The Song of the Stormy-Petrel ("Let i t brea k i n al l it s fury!') . Bu t i n contrast to Gorky's stormy-petrel, Tuzenbach doe s not expect the storm to be destructive . I n fac t The Song of the Stormy-Petrel was printe d thre e months after th e premier e o f Three Sisters, and perhap s i t wa s partl y intended t o continu e a polemi c wit h Chekhov' s characters ' ide a o f improving society . Tuzenbac h dreame d o f riddin g societ y o f 'idleness , indifference, prejudic e agains t work , putri d tedium ' (Works, vol . XIII , p. 123) , and that was all. Chekhov's memoir s testif y tha t hi s visio n o f Russia' s futur e wa s no t a s optimistic a s we were taugh t t o believe . He wrot e abou t event s tha t 'wil l turn everything upside down': 'Our time is much like that lived through by our fathers shortl y before th e Crimean campaign, except that we are in for a greater ordeal. I know this for sure' (my italics - E.P.). 14 That was written in 1903, and a month later the war with Japan broke out. At first Chekhov entertained som e hopes about th e outcome o f that war ('W e shal l beat the Japs.') (Letters, vol. xn, p . 54), and even wanted to serve as a field doctor. After th e defeat o f the Russian army, analogies with the Crimean campaign became widespread. Missing the Russian weather i n the Crimea a t the end of 1901 , Chekhov wrote: 'An endless field and a lonely birch-tree. The name of the picture is 2-5 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

EMMA POLOTSKAY A

"loneliness"' (Works, vol . xvn , p . 84) . An d h e wrot e thi s abou t Isaa k Levitan's pictur e Hay-Ricks: 'A meadow , hay-cocks , fores t a t a distance , and reignin g ove r the m al l i s th e moon ' (Letters, vol. ix, p . 81) . Thes e sketches betra y the melancholy, lyrical , o r a s Chekhov would say , 'Levita nian mood'. It is similar t o the heroine's mood i n 'Thre e Years ' who looks at a landscape in an art gallery , an d feels th e air filled wit h loneliness , and silence. Finally, there is one further poin t on this subject which Chekhov wrote in Yalta in 1899: 'A conversation about earth from anothe r planet 1,00 0 years from now : d o yo u remembe r tha t whit e (birch ) tre e . . .?' Th e imag e o f Russia is placed in a global context. It is about the time when 'all lives have made their woeful circl e and die d out', bu t the earth an d its satellites have not yet turned t o ashes, as The World Sou l prophesied i n Treplev's play in The Seagull. In othe r words , thi s i s post-apocalyptic . Henc e th e date : '1,000 years from now' , according to the New Testament, meant the end of 'the earthly history', mentioned b y the black monk in the story of the same name (1894). 15 An d fo r Chekhov , b y that tim e th e forme r inhabitant s o f the earth will have moved to another planet and even forgotten the name of the birch-tree . Th e birch-tree , withou t whic h th e Russia n landscap e i s inconceivable, becomes the symbol of both Russia and the world. But while Chekhov had a grim vision of the earth's future, abandone d by human species , he als o had fait h i n the triump h o f ma n i n the contex t o f earthly reality . H e pin s hi s hope s fo r a bette r futur e fo r Russi a no t o n a social class, but on individuals: 'I have faith i n individuals, I seek salvation in individual people , whether intellectual s o r peasants . They ar e scattere d all ove r Russia , the y hav e power , althoug h the y ar e scarce ' (Letters, vol. VIII, p. 101) . And i t wa s Chekhov' s constan t an d fir m positio n no t t o divide people into classes or social groups: 'No division is good, for we are all a nation an d the best things we do are for th e nation' (m y italics - E.P. ) (Works, vol. XVII, p. 9). In spite of all the human weaknesses and vices that he sa w s o clearl y an d expose d s o ruthlessly , Chekho v ha d fait h i n individuals. This fait h wa s fe d b y th e ris e o f 'socia l awareness ' (Letters, vol. vm, p. 101 ) in Russia, o f the educational, cultural an d ethical standard s o f the Russian intelligentsia, 16 a s well a s b y the blossomin g o f Russia n spiritua l culture a t th e tur n o f th e nineteent h (an d twentieth ) centuries . Chekhov' s contemporaries an d acquaintance s wer e suc h outstandin g personalitie s as Le v Tolstoy , Feodo r Chaliapin , Pete r Tchaikovsky , Isaa k Levitan , Konstantin Korovin , Serge i Rakhmanino v (whos e geniu s Chekho v wa s amongst th e firs t t o recognise) , Vladimi r Nemirovich-Danchenk o an d Konstantin Stanislavsky . Th e idea s o f other s o f hi s contemporaries , suc h 26 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov and his Russia professional revolutionarie s a s Lenin , Plekhano v an d others , wer e pro foundly alie n t o Chekhov , althoug h h e coul d no t hel p sympathisin g wit h political prisoner s (man y o f who m h e me t o n Sakhalin) . Bu t Chekhov' s rejection o f th e class-oriente d mode l o f change , a s wel l a s o f al l form s o f violence, made i t impossibl e fo r hi m t o accep t th e revolutio n whic h h e fel t was about to break out . The premonition o f calamity o n the eve of the revolution, combined wit h strong fait h i n Russia , wa s share d b y hi s successor s i n literature . I n hi s article, entitled 'Timelessness ' (1906) , Alexander Blok wrote: 'Some devilish vitality help s u s bur n an d neve r bur n out.' 17 An d a s fo r th e presen t when , as Tolsto y onc e pu t it , everythin g i n Russi a 'ha s gon e hea d ove r heel s an d cannot ge t back o n its feet', 18 w e need onl y to repeat , afte r th e philosophe r Berdyaev, that ou r hope is in Russia's 'hidde n resources'. 19 In the story 'I n the Ravine' the wise old man observes reassuringly: 'Lif e is long and there will b e many good an d ba d happenings. Mother Russi a i s so vast' (Works, vol . x, p . 175) . I n thi s statement , differen t aspect s o f Russi a merge into one. A Russia that is eternal. NOTES 1 I n pre-Revolutionary Russia there were fourteen grades of civil servants. 2 Unles s otherwise specified , th e references t o Works and Letters ar e from N . F. Belchikov an d others, eds., Anton Chekhov, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem v 3oi tomakh, Moscow , 1974-8 3 (Anton Chekhov, Collected Works and Letters in 30 Volumes, Moscow, 1974-83) . 3 Th e translation o f the story title s i s from Hingley , The Oxford Chekhov, vol s III-IX. See Appendix 1 .

4 Althoug h i n a differen t context , Chekhov' s poin t i s als o quote d b y Anatol y Smeliansky i n hi s 'Chekho v a t th e Mosco w Ar t Theatre' , chapte r 3 i n thi s volume. Th e reiteratio n i s significan t fo r Europ e bot h historicall y and as we approach the new millennium. 5 R.L . Jackson wa s the first to write abou t Chekhov' s interpretatio n o f Russia' s endless expanses , i n hi s chapte r 'Time s an d Travellings : A Metapho r o f All Times', i n Chekhoviana, Chekhov in 20th Century Culture, Moscow , 1993, pp. 8-9 . 6 Fo r a version o f this phrase , se e V. V. Rozanov, ed. , Collected Works, vol . vn , The Legend of the Great Inquisitor, b y F. Dostoyevsky, Mosco w 1966 , p. 52: 'Deserted and dark fields with a dashing horseman riding across them'. 7 Cite d b y O. N. Mikhailov wit h referenc e t o D. M. Merezhkovsky, bu t without source given. See Literary Gazette, 1 1 October 1989 , p. 2. 8 N . V. Gogol, Dead Souls, i n Collected Works in 6 Volumes, Moscow , 1949. vol. v , pp. 248-9. 9 Se e T P . Krestinskaya , Motifs of Sakhalin in Chekhov's Works, Nizhn i Novgorod Teacher's Training College, Nizhni Novgorod, 1967 , vol. xx, p. i n . 10 Se e Appendix 1 for Russian titles and English variations. 27 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

EMMA POLOTSKAY A

11 A n acquaintanc e o f Chekhov' s fro m Yalt a recalls : 'Mosco w fo r hi m wa s trul y the hol y land , th e concentratio n o f everythin g Chekho v love d i n Russi a . . . I t was clea r tha t th e name s o f th e streets , Samotek a o r Pushchikha , th e thawe d street dir t i n March , eve n th e gre y mist y day s wer e dea r t o him , an d fille d hi s heart wit h pleasan t feelings. ' S . Y . Yelpatyevsk y an d others , eds. , Chekhov v

vospominaniyakh sovremennikov [Chekhov in the Memoirs of his Contemporaries], Moscow, i960, p. 570-1 . 12 A . A. Blok, Works in 2 volumes, Moscow, 1955, vol. 1, p. 288. 13 Se e A. I . Kuprin , In Memory of Chekhov, in Chekhov in the Memoirs of his Contemporaries, p. 541. 14 Se e A . Mamontov , Two Meetings with Chekhov, in Russkoye slovo, 2 July 1909.

15 I . N . Sukhik h interprete d th e blac k mon k i n Chekhov' s stor y a s a prophet of Doomsday. Se e I . N . Sukhik h i n Problems of Chekhov's Poetics, Leningrad, 1987, pp. 108-9 . 16 Se e A. I. Kuprin, In Memory of Chekhov, pp. 542 , 775. 17 Se e A. A. Blok, Works in 2 Volumes, vol. 11, p. 31. 18 Quote d i n L. N. Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, i n Collected Works in 14 Volumes, vol. VIII , Moscow, 1952, p . 349 .

19 Se e N. A. Berdyaev, Spirits of the Russian Revolution (1918), in Russkaya mysl, May-June 1918 , and in Literaturnaya ucheba, March-April 1990 , p. 139.

28 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

3 ANATOLY SMELIANSK Y

Chekhov a t the Moscow Art Theatr e

Chekhov's relationshi p wit h th e Mosco w Ar t Theatr e i s a stor y i n itself , and quit e a tangled on e a t that . I t i s th e stor y o f ho w Chekhov' s theatr e came into being and Stanislavsky and Nemirovich-Danchenko's struggl e to master th e poetic s o f hi s drama . I t i s th e stor y o f ho w eve n i n th e dramatist's lifetime the Chekhov canon evolved into a theatrical strait] acket from whic h i t becam e necessar y t o brea k free . I t i s the stor y o f th e dee p divisions betwee n theatr e an d dramatis t involvin g th e mos t fundamenta l questions concernin g th e ar t o f theatre : th e precis e genr e o f Chekhov' s plays; his view o f characte r an d hi s attitud e toward s th e whol e historica l development o f Russi a itself . I n a n attemp t t o consol e Stanislavsk y afte r Chekhov's death , Nemirovich-Danchenk o said : 'W e ha d alread y los t Chekhov with The Cherry Orchard. He would never have written anythin g else.'1 This merciless verdict expresse s al l the tension tha t existe d betwee n Chekhov and the Moscow Art Theatre. After Chekhov' s death, his plays began to be perceived in the light of new theatrical developments . Th e MAT' s production s o f Chekho v starte d t o break free , no t fro m Chekho v himself , bu t rathe r fro m th e styl e o f th e 'theatre o f mood' an d fro m th e detaile d naturalis m tha t ha d onl y recently brought fam e an d succes s to th e youn g company . A few word s shoul d b e said about this naturalism, which was to come under attac k no t onl y fro m Meyerhold bu t fro m Stanislavsk y himsel f (whic h wa s ho w th e tw o me n came together and established the Studio on Povarskaya Stree t in 1905). The technique s o f th e earl y MA T ar e wel l known . Th e audienc e o f Treplev's pla y (i n The Seagull) casually sittin g wit h thei r back s t o th e audience; Astro v swattin g mosquitoe s i n Uncle Vanya; the evenin g half light in the house of the three sisters; the crackling of logs in the stove; the chirping o f a cricket; a single candle-flame; th e sound s o f the fire; hushed, non-actorish voices , the child's abandone d chai r o n Ranevskaya's estat e all o f thi s combine d t o creat e a powerful sens e o f the flow of life. Hence, the effect o f the so-called 'fourth wall' .

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

ANATOLY SMELIANSK Y

The early MAT revitalised the art of acting, made a cult of the pause, the subtext an d th e constan t interactio n o f characters . Ther e emerge d th e concept o f th e ensembl e an d a psychological styl e o f acting . Th e produc tions o f Chekho v a t th e MA T gav e birt h t o a ne w Russia n audience , shaping it s taste s an d expectations . Thi s i s arguabl y on e o f th e mos t important aspect s o f th e theatrica l reform s tha t wer e initiate d b y th e company. Chekhov change d th e scal e o f wha t i s calle d 'a n event ' i n drama . H e changed the very object o f theatre: instead of 'the drama in life' 'th e drama of lif e itsel f becam e th e focu s o f hi s compositions . H e deliberatel y obscured plot , refuse d t o express his own ideas through th e dialogue s an d monologues an d coldl y distance d himsel f fro m hi s characters , no t identi fying wit h an y o f them . I n th e word s o f Pasternak , h e inscribe d hi s characters int o a landscape an d too k thei r words , together wit h th e ai r in which the y wer e uttere d - a n impressionis t technique . Chekho v gav e u p teaching an d preachin g - thos e mai n element s o f Russia n hig h classica l literature. Hi s narrativ e motif s contai n no t a singl e resolutio n o r eve n a clear explanation. It is impossible to understand why the three sisters never got to Moscow or why Ranevskaya couldn' t sav e her estate. The most that can be said is: life's like that. His characters are defined b y the 'out-of-joint ' world tha t gav e rise t o ne w cause s an d effect s i n bot h lif e an d i n drama . Chekhov expresse d thi s chang e o f viewpoin t i n a brie f note : 'No w the y shoot themselve s becaus e the y ar e sic k o f life , an d s o on. Previously, the y did it because they had embezzled public money.' Each o f Chekhov' s play s a t th e MA T ha d a differen t 'lifespan' : th e shortest was that of The Seagull, whic h survived for onl y 63 performances; Uncle Vanya was performe d 31 6 times , an d Three Sisters 229. Th e on e which live d longes t wa s The Cherry Orchard, which ra n righ t u p t o th e October Revolutio n an d then was revived in 1928 , resulting in a total ru n of 1,20 9 performances . Th e pla y an d th e productio n becam e a metapho r for 'movin g house'. When Olga Knipper-Chekhova decide d to leave Russia in autum n 1920 , sh e wrote a letter t o Stanislavsk y i n Moscow. Instead of going into lon g explanations , sh e used on e o f Ranevskaya' s lines : 'Life i n this house is over.' The Revolutio n wa s t o chang e th e approac h t o Chekho v fo r man y years. Furiou s attack s b y th e 'leftists ' (i n 1920 , Mayakovsk y wrot e tha t 'Chekhov an d Stanislavsk y stink') , coincided wit h fundamental change s in the organisatio n o f th e Mosco w Ar t Theatre . Talkin g t o actor s i n 1919 , Stanislavsky stresse d th e importance o f rhythm i n Chekhov : 'Ther e wa s a time whe n ou r production s o f Chekho v wer e appallingl y bad . Incredibl y long pauses , ponderou s rhythm , drear y tempo . Whe n w e perfor m 30 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov at the Moscow Art Theatre Chekhov lik e that , w e reduc e hi m t o th e ordinary , t o a Chekho v "general isation".' 2 But i t wa s th e rhythm o f history , no t o f theatre, that ha d changed . Whe n the Civi l Wa r ende d i n 1922 , Stanislavsk y an d th e MA T wen t o n tou r t o Europe an d America . Sittin g in his hotel roo m i n Berlin, Stanislavsk y wrot e back t o Mosco w sayin g ho w difficul t i t had becom e fo r hi m t o play the ol d Chekhovian characters : 'Actin g th e scen e wher e Vershini n say s goodby e t o Masha i n Three Sisters, m y min d i s confused . Afte r wha t w e hav e bee n through, i t i s quit e impossibl e t o b e move d becaus e a n office r ha s t o leav e and hi s lad y ha s t o sta y behind . I a m no t enjoyin g Chekhov . O n th e contrary, I woul d prefe r no t t o b e actin g i n hi s plays.' 3 Thi s lette r wa s addressed t o Nemirovich-Danchenko , wh o ha d staye d i n Moscow , keepin g an ey e o n event s i n th e Revolution' s ne w capital . Shortl y befor e th e company wa s du e t o retur n fro m America , Nemirovich-Danchenk o sen t them a serie s o f warnin g letter s - th e mai n message , accordin g t o Nemirovich himsel f - bein g memento mori: I want t o shou t t o them acros s the ocean : what repertoire? ! Uncle Vanya i s out of the question. Three Sisters should not even begin rehearsal, considering the conten t [i n th e contex t o f th e Civi l War , th e pla y wa s believe d t o sympathise with the 'officer class' ] and the ages of the performers. The Cherry Orchard will no t b e allowed . I mean tha t the y won't allo w a play which is seen to lamen t th e los t estate s o f th e gentry. And it won't stan d a n update d ('welcome ne w life' ) treatment . Ivanov i s completel y ou t o f tun e wit h thi s positive, 'cheerful' epoch. 4 Those wer e th e specifi c circumstance s whic h ha d t o b e taken int o account . The archive s contai n Nemirovich-Danchenko' s note , date d 1925 , when, i n an effort t o respond t o the challenge o f the times, the MAT staged Trenyov' s The Pugachev's Revolt. Fo r Nemirovich , th e productio n o f thi s pla y signified th e voluntar y rejectio n o f a quarte r o f a century' s accumulate d experience. Th e rejectio n wa s categorical : 'I t i s necessar y t o exclud e fro m the MA T repertoir e . . . work s o f literatur e tha t ar e unacceptabl e fo r th e present da y (fo r example , al l o f Chekhov' s plays , a t leas t i n thei r ol d interpretations). '5 The Cherry Orchard wa s restore d t o th e repertoir e i n 1928 . Yur y Sobolev wrote : 'Everythin g tha t coul d b e don e t o someho w freshe n u p th e play wa s done . This wa s especiall y tru e o f th e temp o o f th e firs t ac t wher e there i s now muc h mor e laughte r tha n befor e . . . The elegia c moo d o f th e last ac t was somewha t tone d down.' 6 Suc h 'revisionism ' altere d th e essenc e of th e MAT . Time itsel f ha d correcte d 'th e mood ' o f The Cherry Orchard. Other production s i n th e thirtie s (a s distinc t fro m th e MAT's , o f course) , placed Lopakhi n a t th e forefront , interpretin g hi m a s a n entirel y 'positiv e

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

ANATOLY SMELIANSK Y

hero' wh o take s a n ax e t o th e cherr y orchard . I n th e lat e thirties , Nemirovich-Danchenko, b y this time without Stanislavsky who had died in 1938, presented a new version of Three Sisters which in many ways served as a polemic with the original turn-of-the-century production . In a letter to Maria Knebel, 7 Nemirovic h formulate d hi s directoria l interpretatio n an d ideas, aimed a t dispelling the MAT's acting cliches. Amongst these was the 'exaggerated an d distorted use of the device of "the objective" (th e style of intensive interaction wit h a partner which Stanislavsky had invented at the beginning of the century, as a means of overcoming the practice of directly addressing th e audienc e an d ignorin g one' s on-stag e partner , whic h wa s habitual i n th e Imperia l theatres) . Nemirovic h wen t o n t o criticis e ' a drawn-out tempo ' (here , a s w e hav e seen , h e wa s i n agreemen t wit h Stanislavsky); 'talkin g inaudibl y t o onesel f (fo r th e sak e o f poorly under stood simplicity ) an d sentimentalis m instea d o f lyricism . I n oppositio n t o such cliches, Nemirovich-Danchenko propose d ne w directoria l technique s for Chekhov : a clearly define d 'core ' fo r th e production i.e . a new 'super objective' wit h a full y understoo d an d sustaine d subtext , 'robustness' , poetry, simplicity and genuine theatricality.8 In achievin g hi s ends , Nemirovic h a s directo r prove d t o b e quit e a virtuoso. A new poeticised Chekho v emerged, complet e with a n avenue of birch trees, and wit h 'th e yearnin g for a better life ' a s the firm cor e o f the production. But even this directorial masterpiece wa s subject t o the limitations impose d b y its time . Nemirovic h ruthlessl y cu t a number o f motif s from th e play, the result bein g that it s Chekhovian symphoni c qualit y was lost. Thus, in the fina l scen e he shortene d th e cynica l ye t infinitel y mean ingful lin e of Chebutykin that prefigured th e Theatre of the Absurd: 'If only we knew' , an d Chebutykin' s 'Tarara-boom-deay' , line s not belongin g t o two differen t play s bu t t o th e on e pla y b y Chekho v wit h hi s acut e perception o f th e meanin g o f life , hi s harshnes s an d restrain t - qualitie s that wer e to be in such deman d afte r th e Secon d World War an d afte r th e death of Stalin, when a new generation of directors would take over. In th e post-wa r years , th e traditio n o f Chekho v a t th e MA T becam e shallow an d meaningless . Michae l Kedrov' s 194 7 productio n o f Uncle Vanya (assisted b y Litovtseva an d Sudakov) , wa s a n attemp t t o interpre t the pla y i n th e optimisti c spiri t o f Socialis t Realism . Th e onl y redeemin g feature o f thi s well-intentione d bu t wholl y imitativ e productio n wa s th e splendid performance o f Boris Dobronravov in the title role. Devoid of any ensemble work , i t wa s a mono-play, o r sol o performance , tha t thre w th e theatre back to pre-Chekhovian times. The mos t popula r o f th e MA T revivals wa s The Seagull. Ther e wa s a n attempt t o mak e a jubilee productio n o f th e pla y t o mar k Chekhov' s on e 32 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov at the Moscow Art Theatre hundredth birthda y in i960, directed by Stanitsyn and Rayevsky, but it did not sta y lon g i n th e repertoire . Bori s Livanov' s 196 8 production , o n th e other hand, ran for man y years even though there were really no new ideas in it. Stanislavsky would have described its style as 'ordinary Chekhov' . Partly a s a ripost e t o Livanov' s romanti c an d 'ordinary , generalised ' Chekhov, The Seagull was produced i n the late sixtie s a t the Sovremenni k (Contemporary) Theatre, 9 whic h ha d begu n a s th e MA T studio-theatre , and whic h remaine d linke d t o it s origin s i n a straine d an d fractiou s polemical relationship. The director was Oleg Yefremov wh o shortly after wards became Artistic Director of the MAT, a post he has now occupied for thirty years . Fo r thi s reaso n i t i s wort h takin g a close r loo k a t hi s firs t serious encounte r wit h Chekhov . I n hi s wor k o n The Seagull, Yefremov identified certai n cunning qualities in this 'inspired and heretical play'. This play can start a theatre - bu t it can also finish it off. The Seagull marked the end of Yefremov's wor k with the Sovremennik. The Seagull a t the Sovremenni k reflecte d th e situatio n a t th e en d o f the sixties when 'Th e Thaw' 10 cam e to an end, and when Soviet tanks entered Prague. Chekhov' s text , seemingl y completel y irrelevan t t o thes e events , nonetheless responded to them. The death of 'the common ideal' set the tone for the production. Chekhov's text was flooded with all the mutual recriminations, disappointment s an d hostilitie s tha t ha d accumulate d ove r th e previous years. Yefremov turne d th e author o f The Seagull into a lampoonist, bore d rigi d b y intellectua l conversatio n an d critica l o f writer s an d actors who talk a lot and do nothing. Yefremov imparte d to The Seagull the ideological confusio n an d despai r tha t typifie d th e late sixties . People ha d stopped hearing or listening to each other. All they did was strike attitudes, make scenes and squabble . And dig for worm s for fishing from th e flowerbed that the designer, Sergei Barkhin, had installed in the middle of the stage. At the MAT Yefremov avoide d Chekho v for nearl y seven years. Perhaps he wa s discourage d b y th e failur e o f hi s Seagull at th e Sovremennik . H e returned to him again in 1976 with Ivanov. The play - abou t human deca y - whic h had been so out of tune with the 'cheerful' epoc h o f th e earl y twenties , no w prove d t o b e exceptionall y appropriate t o th e 'stagnation ' o f the 1970s . In the MAT production, thi s stagnation wa s polarise d b y usin g tw o basi c colours , blac k an d white . Hovering i n the 'background ' ar e the uncouth an d useless young guests in Act Four , calle d 'cavemen , troglodytes ' b y Lebedev, attacke d b y Sash a i n Act Two and described by Lvov as: 'Those wretched people. Vultures, birds of prey. They only come to tear each other to bits.' These and the constant motif o f th e 'gooseberr y jam' , combine d wit h Mish a Borkin' s bumptious ness (performe d b y Vyacheslav Nevinny) - wer e all meant t o counterpoin t 33 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

ANATOLY SMELIANSK Y

the lofty confessiona l ton e in which Innokenty Smoktunovsky 11 performe d the title role. The situation, wit h Ivanov' s apparently unmotivated depres sion, suddenl y reveale d it s 'long-term ' meaning . Suc h complet e emptines s of the soul, the 'disease' which Chekhov rated worse than syphilis or sexual impotence, wa s presente d b y Smoktunovsk y wit h frightenin g lyrica l pro fundity. This MA T productio n followe d anothe r Ivanov, directe d b y Mar k Zakharov a t th e Lenko m Theatre , wit h Yevgen y Leonov i n th e titl e role . Instead o f presentin g a 'Russia n Hamlet', 12 Leono v mad e hi m jus t a n average intellectual, not the Ivanov - bu t one Ivanov, 'the million and first', as Alexande r Kuge l onc e describe d him . Wha t wa s importan t wa s th e typicality o f thi s remarkabl e actor ; Leonov' s huma n dimensio n matche d that o f everyon e i n th e audience . I n contrast , Smoktunovsk y performe d precisely th e 'Russia n Hamlet' , a n extraordinar y man , o f undoubte d strength, bu t sic k fro m th e commo n diseas e o f th e times . Hi s Ivano v suffered an d agonised , unabl e to defin e a place for himsel f eithe r i n life o r in the space of the MAT stage. Significantly, i t was the arrangement o f the space, designed b y David Borovsky , that physically conveyed the nature of the disease, the desperate bu t unsatisfied desir e for fulfilmen t tha t Smoktu novsky trie d t o enact . Th e designe r furnishe d th e acto r wit h a bar e stag e enclosed b y the colonnaded facad e o f the manor-house, with the autumna l garden castin g th e sombr e shadow s o f it s leafles s branche s o n th e walls . Thus Ivano v acte d i n a spac e tha t looke d devastated , a s thoug h pillaged , where he literally could find no place for himself , or even anything to lean on. At first the actor rejecte d thi s spatia l solution , fearin g tha t i n this play about everyda y lif e h e woul d b e lef t exposed , withou t suppor t o r cover . The director insiste d an d in the end the protagonist's anguis h in the empty yet claustrophobic space powerfully conveye d Chekhov's perception of life, which cause d hi m onc e t o observ e tha t i n Wester n Europe , peopl e di e because thei r spac e i s crampe d an d suffocating , whil e i n Russi a the y di e because the space is an endless expanse, in which a little man has no way of finding his bearings. 13 'Th e lan d look s a t me , like a n orphan' , Chekhov' s character repeatedl y say s - an d Smoktunovsk y conveye d thi s feelin g wit h exceptional inner strength. In this Ivanov, his former fellow-student , Lebede v (performe d b y Andrei Popov) looke d guiltil y into hi s eyes, trying t o comfor t Ivano v an d explai n the nature of his malaise, mumbling something about the milieu 'eating you up', embarrassed b y the banality o f his own words and trying to dispel his unease wit h th e inevitabl e sho t o f vodka , serve d unerringl y o n cue b y his manservant. Smoktunovsk y conveye d a distinctiv e spiritua l paralysis , caused b y a sense of meaninglessness, o f eternal emptiness an d stagnation . 34 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov at the Moscow Art Theatre Those, like Lebedev who can drink, get drunk. Those, like Borkin, who can get carrie d awa y b y som e idioti c project , ge t carrie d away . Those , lik e Count Shabelsk y (splendidl y performe d b y Mar k Prudkin ) wh o tak e pleasure in perpetrating som e vileness or other , even at their ow n expense, do so. Ivanov can do none of these things. All he can do - i s capitulate. So Ivanov accept s deat h a s deliverance . The onl y time in the production tha t he smile d wa s whe n th e emancipate d girl , madl y i n lov e wit h him , attempted t o awake n hi m t o a ne w lif e b y repeating sill y word s sh e ha d read i n books . A t tha t momen t h e someho w becam e full y awar e o f th e shamefulness o f hi s situatio n an d too k hi s ow n life . W e di d no t hea r th e shot. Quit e simply , th e guest s - th e 'barbarians ' i n Lebedev' s house , assembled fo r th e weddin g breakfast , dre w back , an d o n th e floor in th e middle of the stage we saw the dead man. In 1980 , te n year s afte r hi s Sovremenni k Seagull and fou r year s afte r Ivanov, Yefremo v returne d t o The Seagull. A s w e hav e seen , i n th e Sovremennik production , th e flower-bed with worm s ha d boldl y replace d Chekhov's 'enchante d lake' , th e tree s an d eve n th e ai r tha t Chekhov' s characters breathe . An d now , te n year s o n i n hi s lif e an d i n tha t o f th e MAT, Yefremo v too k a fres h loo k a t th e play . Fo r th e first tim e i n hi s directorial career , he introduced th e concept o f transcendent natur e whic h alters th e scal e o f huma n conflicts . Th e intellectua l debate s n o longe r interested the director but gave way to the drama of life itself. In 1970, The Seagull was interpreted a s a pamphlet; in 1980, the predominant motif was that of reconciliation, understanding and forgiveness. The Seagull marked the beginning of Yefremov's lon g collaboration with the stag e designe r Valer y Levental . H e responde d t o th e ne w attitude s towards lif e an d toward s th e theatre , whic h fo r Yefremo v wer e alway s indivisible. The Seagull was designe d b y hi m a s a symphon y o f light , a dance of curtains in a flickeringspace. Chekhov's characters became part of the landscape, like trees or clouds; they lived amidst nature, dissolved in it and die d amidst the beauty o f its indifferent world . The main sound effec t was th e seagull' s cry , bu t i t wa s no t s o muc h poeti c a s oppressive , disturbing, expressin g th e them e o f a n endles s circlin g i n searc h o f some thing that might comfort th e soul. For th e first tim e sinc e comin g togethe r te n year s earlier , th e MA T company performe d a s a perceptibl e ensemble : Lavrov a a s Arkadina , Vertinskaya a s Nina , Smoktunovsk y a s Dorn , Andre i Popo v a s Sorin , Myagkov a s Treplev , Nevinn y a s Shamraev , Kindino v a s Medvedenk o these wer e actor s capabl e o f understandin g th e Chekho v tha t Yefremo v was i n th e proces s o f rediscoverin g fo r himself . Ther e wa s n o lac k o f opportunities t o act . I n contras t wit h th e Sovremenni k production , a t th e 35 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

ANATOLY SMELIANSK Y

MAT Yefremov wante d t o mak e ever y characte r heard . H e immerse d th e 'words, words , words ' i n th e glitterin g foliage . True , thes e character s o f Chekhov wer e garrulous , s o garrulou s tha t the y di d no t eve n notic e someone dying : in thi s production , Sori n (Andre i Popov) . Bu t despit e al l the disillusion and loss, the motif of faith amidst decay was gaining strength - th e kind of faith that is fed not by love or hatred, but by an understanding of the basic reality of life as an insoluble drama. The directo r an d designe r move d th e pavilion-theatr e downstag e making i t a furthe r animate d 'character ' i n th e play . Thi s pavilio n func tioned wit h a rhyth m o f it s own , a t on e momen t advancin g t o th e ver y front o f the stage, and the next dissolvin g into the depths o f the autumna l park. In this pavilion, th e theatre o f Kostya Treple v an d Nina Zarechnay a came int o being . B y th e en d o f th e pla y i t looke d devastated , th e win d blowing throug h th e crack s i n it s wall s an d rufflin g th e tattere d whit e curtains. Anastasi a Vertinskay a a s Nin a Zarechnay a repeate d Treplev' s monologue bu t this time not a s the empty phrases o f an apprentice writer . Kostya Treplev' s deat h brough t ou t th e real meaning o f th e abstrus e line s about th e world-soul, people , lions, eagles an d partridges . And these lines were spoke n not b y a provincial girl , but b y an 'actress ' with a capital 'A ' who ha d walke d he r pat h o f sufferin g an d reache d th e sourc e o f th e symbolic visions . Th e ide a o f mergin g materia l matte r wit h th e spiri t achieved a real human dimension. To carry one's cross and keep the faith that was said not only of Nina Zarechnaya. In a n od d way , Chekho v a t th e Mosco w Ar t Theatr e accompanie d no t only th e profoun d change s a t th e theatr e itsel f bu t i n Russi a a s a whole. Uncle Vanya was premiered i n February 198 5 and o n 30 April it was seen by th e newl y electe d Genera l Secretary , Mikhai l Gorbachev . H e sa w a Chekhov who , i n hi s ow n way , summe d u p th e consequence s o f a 'constrained' life . The motif o f creative patience becam e central. Yefremo v did no t attemp t t o tur n Uncle Vanya, with hi s complaint ' I haven't lived' , into a hero. (How could he not have lived when by definition hi s life was in fact itsel f life? ) A s Astrov, Yefremov wa s embedded i n the dail y trivialities of existenc e - an d struggle d t o brea k out . Th e MA T stag e revolved , revealing the interiors o f the house. Astrov took t o drin k an d ther e wa s a brief respit e whe n hi s sou l becam e fre e - an d everythin g aroun d hi m was turned upsid e down . Th e undistinguishe d Her r Professo r Serebryako v (played b y Yevgen i Yevstigneyev ) continue d t o tyrannis e hi s wif e an d indulge hi s whims , an d then the stor m broke . An d a s a consequenc e th e confessions cam e flooding out . On e perso n wa s drinking , anothe r wa s praying, rendere d helples s b y unrequite d love , whil e ye t anothe r wa s suffering fro m lac k o f self-fulfilment . An d together , the y mad e u p al l 36 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov at the Moscow Art Theatre human life. Levental had placed the house upstage agains t the backgroun d of a n autumna l landscap e i n th e styl e o f Levitan. 14 Whe n th e stag e wa s plunged int o darkness , we suddenly notice d throug h th e mist a faint ligh t suspended above the dewy ground. It was a small window in a house on a distant hill . The light shon e diml y i n the darkness , bu t i t shon e invitingly, showing th e way. Such was the end o f th e performance, premiere d o n the very eve of changes tha t wer e to transfor m no t onl y Russi a bu t th e entir e world. On 7 May 1985 , Gorbachev telephone d Yefremo v t o giv e his reaction s to th e production, sayin g that h e had like d Astro v an d tha t h e had foun d Uncle Vanya simply heartrending. Then he said how much there was to do, that the y shoul d mee t t o discus s th e problem s o f theatre , an d tha t i n general it was time 'to set the fly-wheelin motion'. Could he have imagined then wher e tha t fly-wheel would en d up ? I happened t o b e in Yefremov' s office durin g this conversation, an d Yefremov seeme d to be speaking in his usual manner, making no attempt t o flatter his caller. After hangin g up, he suddenly wipe d th e swea t fro m hi s brow . Seein g m y surprise , h e smile d guiltily an d paraphrasin g Chekhov , said : 'Yo u know , it' s har d t o squeez e the slave out of yourself.' A later productio n o f Chekho v a t MAT was Three Sisters. I t opene d i n February 199 7 during the preparations fo r the MAT centennial. It bore all the sign s o f a n attemp t a t 'summin g up' . It wa s a s thoug h Yefremo v wa s replaying al l th e mai n theme s o f hi s production s o f Chekhov , beginnin g with th e fat e o f 'home ' - an d endin g wit h th e them e o f patienc e an d submission t o th e merciles s cycl e o f life . Thi s time , Leventa l locate d th e house o f th e Prozoro v sister s i n a kin d o f cosmi c spher e whic h change d colour fou r times : fro m th e whit e o f sprin g o n Irina' s name-da y t o th e sombre blue of winter; fro m th e red suggestin g the fire to the rusty colour of th e autumna l final act. Thes e symboli c change s o f colou r reflecte d th e rhythm o f life that carrie s the characters from hop e to despair. The closing scene o f th e thre e sister s biddin g farewel l t o th e departin g officer s wa s tragically expressive , an d choreographe d almos t lik e a ballet . Th e sisters ' arms interwove as they tried to hold together in a circle, but some invisible force drove them apart and broke their embrace. Yefremov learne d Chekhov's most important lesson long ago, one that is now bein g experience d acutel y b y th e whol e o f Russia . H e graspe d hi s objectivity, hi s detachmen t fro m an y ideology , doctrin e o r politica l label . The age of ideologies that crushed human beings is receding. And Chekhov now stands revealed to us in all his strange, disquieting profundity . In contrast wit h th e 194 0 production o f Three Sisters, Yefremov' s 199 7 version lack s any optimism, an y sign s o f poeti c exaltation . Th e strain s of 37 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

ANATOLY SMELIANSK Y

i Mosco w Ar t Theatre production o f The Three Sisters at Brooklyn Academy of Music , January 1998 . Sets and costume b y Valery Levental, directed b y Oleg Yefremov .

the marc h a s th e regimen t leave s th e tow n ver y quickl y giv e wa y t o Chebutykin's nonsens e song . Bu t eve n hi s 'Tarara-boom-deay ' doesn' t embrace th e entir e expans e o f life . Th e full sto p in thi s productio n i s not 'I f only w e knew' , bu t th e dancin g imag e o f th e vanishin g house . Thi s hous e that ha s s o stubbornl y resiste d th e chang e o f seasons , retreat s upstage , dissolving i n th e darkenin g autum n landscape . Th e sombre , threatenin g music o f Scriabi n develop s an d reinforce s th e moo d o f departure . I t i s a s though thi s play , bor n a t th e tur n o f th e centur y ha s hal f anticipate d th e latest tur n o f events . I n th e pla y Vershini n philosophise s tha t 'i n th e past' , mankind wa s bus y wit h wars , campaigns , raid s an d victories , 'bu t now ' i t is all gone and there is nothing t o fill thi s vast empty spac e . . . At th e en d o f th e twentiet h century , Russi a find s itsel f agai n i n thi s 'vas t empty space' . W e ar e tryin g t o fil l it . A t thi s tim e o f spiritua l hiatus , Chekhov i s truly a 'constant companion' . NOTES 1 Lette r fro m V . I. Nemirovich-Danchenk o t o K . S . Stanislavsky , afte r 2 6 July 1904, from V . I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, Selected Letters of V. I. NemirovichDanchenko in Two Volumes, Moscow, 1979, vol. n, p. 378. 38 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov at the Moscow Art Theatre 2 K . S . Stanislavsky , Collected Works of Stanislavsky in 8 Volumes, Moscow, 1974-82, vol. v, p. 134. 3 Lette r fro m K . S. Stanislavsky t o V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, Octobe r 1923 , Berlin, from Collected Works of Stanislavsky, vol. vni, p. 29. 4 Fro m a lette r b y V . I . Nemirovich-Danchenk o t o Olg a Bokzhanskay a o n 9 March 1924 , fro m Selected Letters of V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, vol. 11, p. 304 . 5 MA T Museum, Archives of V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko. 6 Se e Chronicles of the Life and Works of Stanislavsky in 8 Volumes, Izdatelstvo VTO, Moscow, 1973, vol. IV. 7 Mari a Knebel (1898-1985) , actress , director an d teacher. Studied at the Studio of Michae l Chekho v i n 1918 , an d the n a t th e Fourt h Studi o o f th e MAT . In 1924 she became a member of the MAT Company, with whom she played many roles, and worked o n many different production s o f the MAT, such as Kremlin Chimes and Difficult Years. In 1950 she left the MAT to work as director of the Central Children's Theatre. She also taught at GITIS (The Russian State Theatre School). See chapter 1 5 in this volume: Selected Glossary. 8 Lette r fro m V . I. Nemirovich-Danchenko t o Mari a Knebel , Apri l 1942 . From Selected Letters of Nemirovich-Danchenko, vol. 11, p. 536. 9 Yefremo v worked at the Sovremennik Theatre from 195 6 to 1970. 10 'Th e Thaw' is the term generally used to describe the end of Stalinist terror with Stalin's deat h i n 1953 , an d th e majo r speec h a t th e 195 6 Part y Congres s b y Khrushchev i n whic h h e expose d an d condemne d man y o f th e excesse s o f Stalinism, and the end of the long winter of Stalin's regime. With the destruction of 'The Prague Spring' in 1968 , the period of 'The Thaw' came to an end. 'The Thaw' as a metaphor was first used by Ilya Ehrenburg in his story of that name, published in the magazine Znamya in 1954. 11 Innokent y Smoktunovsk y i s perhap s bes t know n i n Wester n Europ e an d America fo r hi s brilliant performanc e a s Hamlet i n Gregori Kozintsev's film of 1965. 12 Th e them e o f 'Hamlet ' run s throughou t muc h o f nineteenth-centur y Russia n literature, dram a an d criticism . Th e us e mad e o f Hamle t wa s o f a characte r incapable o f takin g an y actio n abou t anythin g - whethe r hi s ow n life , o r th e needs o f hi s society . Fo r a detaile d discussio n o f thi s majo r theme , se e Iva n Turgenev's essay o f 1858 , 'Hamlet an d Do n Quixote' . For another exampl e of Chekhov's (comic) use of the theme other than in Ivanov, see the short story 'In Moscow' (1891 ) o r the dramatised version ' A Moscow Hamlet' i n A Chekhov Quartet, trans, and ed. by Vera Gottlieb, Amsterdam, 1996 . Ivanov has his own point to make about himself a s 'Hamlet' i n Act Two, Scene VI in Ivanov - an d about himself as Don Quixote in Act Four, Scene IX. 13 Se e chapter 2 , note 4 in this volume. This is an important reiteration of a major theme an d perceptio n o f Russia n lif e an d Russia n philosophy , a s reflecte d i n literature and drama. See chapter 2 for specific examples in literature. 14 Isaa c Levita n (1861-1900) , landscap e painte r an d frien d o f Chekhov' s artis t brother Nikolai. They shared holidays at Babkino, the estate in the countryside of Moscow Province on which the Chekhovs bought a holiday cottage. Levitan's landscape paintings capture the essence of the Russian countryside, the seasons and country life. It was when out hunting with Levitan that Chekho v may well

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

ANATOLY SMELIANSK Y

have go t th e ide a fo r The Seagull. As h e wrot e i n a lette r t o hi s publishe r Suvorin, on 8 April 189 2 from hi s estate at Melikhovo: 'Last night we went out shooting. He shot a snipe and the bird, wounded in the wing, fell into a puddle. I picke d i t up : lon g beak , bi g blac k eyes , an d beautifu l plumage . I t looke d astonished. What shoul d we do with it? Levitan frowned, close d his eyes, then begged me in a shaky voice, "My dear friend, hi t his head against the gunstock . . . " I said, " I can't. " H e wen t o n shaking , shruggin g hi s shoulders , hi s head twitching, and begging me; and the snipe went on looking at us in astonishment. I had t o agre e with Levita n an d kil l it. On e more beautifu l delightfu l creatur e less, while two idiots went home and sat down to supper.'

40 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

4 EDWARD BRAU N

From Platonov t o Piano

Unlikely a s i t migh t see m today , th e appearanc e i n 192 3 o f a previousl y unpublished an d untitle d pla y b y Chekho v seem s t o hav e arouse d littl e interest in Russia outsid e literary circles. However, it is not surprisin g tha t it wa s ignore d b y th e Sovie t theatr e o f tha t time . Firstly , Chekho v wa s about the last dramatist likely to excite the new revolutionary avant-garde . Secondly, th e Mosco w Ar t Theatr e wa s stil l i n th e gri p o f th e artisti c paralysis to which it had been reduced by the events of 1917, and seventeen more year s wer e t o elaps e befor e i t stage d a new productio n o f Chekhov . Finally, the prospect o f a ramshackle tex t almos t thre e times the length of any other Chekhov play would have deterred most theatres even at the best of times. In fact, i t wa s not unti l 195 7 that th e wor k receive d it s Russia n premiere, thoug h b y tha t tim e i t ha d bee n stage d aroun d th e worl d i n various versions and under a curious variety of titles. In 193 3 th e tex t wa s include d i n th e editio n o f Chekhov' s work s published b y th e Sovie t Stat e Publishin g Hous e fo r Literature , thi s tim e under th e ponderou s titl e Fatherlessness (Bezotsovshchina). Th e evidenc e suggests that this play, which we now know as Platonov, is in large part the same a s th e on e tha t Chekhov , stil l a schoolbo y o f eightee n i n hi s hom e town o f Taganrog, first drafte d i n 187 8 an d reworked extensivel y ove r the next thre e years , onl y t o abando n i t followin g it s rejectio n b y th e Mal y Theatre in Moscow.1 The action o f Platonov takes place in early summe r o n a country estat e 'in one of the Southern provinces' of Russia. Owned by Anna Petrovna, the beautiful youn g wido w o f Genera l Voinitsev , th e estat e i s th e centr e fo r every local intrigue, both romanti c and financial. Irretrievabl y i n debt to a string o f loca l landowner s an d businessmen , Ann a retain s nothin g bu t a n inherited coa l min e a s securit y an d th e onl y solutio n t o he r predicamen t seems t o b e marriag e t o th e wealth y bu t agin g Porfir y Glagolie v o r els e becoming th e kep t woma n o f hi s odiou s son . However , confiden t tha t Glagoliev senior is certain to buy the estate and allow her to continue living 43 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

EDWARD BRAU N

there o n credit , sh e renew s he r attempt s t o seduc e Mikhai l Platonov , a n impoverished landowner and now at twenty-seven the village schoolmaster. Disgusted b y her immorality , Glagolie v depart s wit h hi s so n fo r a lif e o f debauchery i n Paris , an d i n th e fina l ac t i t transpire s tha t th e estat e ha s been bought at auction by the Jewish businessman Vengerovich, who plans to evic t Ann a Petrovn a b y Christmas , alon g wit h he r idl e stepso n Serge i and hi s recently wedde d wif e Sofya . Earlie r i n the play, Platonov ha s firs t welcomed Anna' s advance s bu t the n embark s o n a passionate affai r wit h Sofya, hi s sweetheart fro m thei r studen t days , and plans to run awa y with her, abandonin g hi s youn g wif e Sash a an d thei r infan t son . Fo r he r part , Anna Petrovn a ha s i n th e pas t flirted briefl y wit h Osip , 'horse-thief , parasite, murderer, burglar' (Hingley , The Oxford Chekhov, vol n, p. 41),2 who now in a fit of jealousy makes a botched attemp t a t knifing Platonov . Prior to this, in the climax to Act Three Osip rescues Sasha from unde r the wheels of a train when she tries to commit suicide. In the final act we learn first that Osi p himself ha s bee n lynched b y a crowd o f villagers, and the n that Sash a ha s agai n narrowl y faile d t o tak e he r ow n life . Injure d fro m Osip's assault an d in a state of deliriu m fro m incessan t drinking , Platono v is on the verge of shooting himself, but his courage fails him and instead he decides t o seduc e Mari a Grekova , a serious-minde d youn g chemistr y student whom he has previously humiliated i n public, thereby goading her to su e hi m fo r assault . Now , however , sh e confesse s he r lov e fo r him , whereupon Sofya enters, seizes his revolver and kills him. Even allowing for Chekhov' s numerous cuts, the original text would run for a t leas t five hour s an d ha s twent y speakin g parts , compare d wit h fourteen i n Three Sisters an d only eight in Uncle Vanya. In Platonov, a s in his nex t tw o full-lengt h plays , Ivanov an d The Wood-Demon, Chekho v follows th e genera l nineteenth-centur y practic e o f subdividin g act s int o scenes t o mar k th e characters ' exit s an d entrances . Bu t thi s i s n o mer e matter o f convention: the fact tha t th e play contains no fewer tha n eightythree scene s (henc e eighty-thre e exit s o r entrances ) i s a measur e o f it s frenetic temp o and incessant melodramatic confrontations - a far cr y fro m the flow and texture o f everyday life tha t Chekho v wa s to achieve to such unique effect i n his later plays.3 Theatrical exces s is least in evidence in the first act. As Anna Petrovna' s guests graduall y assembl e fo r a lunc h tha t signal s th e beginnin g o f th e summer's socia l round , Chekho v use s introduction s an d reunion s wit h familiar deftnes s t o acquain t hi s audienc e wit h th e establishe d patter n o f relationships an d to se t up the conflicts tha t ar e to follow. Twic e Platonov threatens th e convivialit y o f th e gathering , first b y reducin g th e insecur e young Maria t o tears with hi s persistent teasing , an d nex t b y gratuitously 44 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

From Flatonov to Piano

trading insult s wit h th e rapaciou s Vengerovich , owne r o f sixty-thre e taverns. Both incidents abruptly raise the dramatic temperature, but neither seems dramatically contrive d sinc e they arise out o f some obscure destructive urg e withi n Platono v an d clearl y ar e onl y th e lates t i n a serie s o f incidents tha t h e has provoked . Also , it is clear tha t b y the time Platono v confronts Vengerovic h he has been deeply disconcerted b y his reunion with Sofya, th e on e true lov e o f his life fro m th e day s when sh e sa w him a s ' a second Byron' , befor e h e droppe d ou t o f universit y an d becam e ' a mer e schoolmaster'. Twice in this act, and frequently throug h the rest of the play, Chekhov resorts to brief soliloquies, but this was a device that he continued to emplo y repeatedly , ofte n a t greate r length , unti l Three Sisters whe n h e finally eliminate d i t b y usin g th e ol d caretake r Ferapon t a s th e dea f an d uncomprehending audience for Andrei's bitter outpourings. In Act Two, Part One, the same company is assembled in the garden for a nocturnal firework s party . The unfolding intrigue s ar e skilfully interwove n with the ebb and flow of guests, whilst the off-stage actio n is suggested by the noise s o f a gam e o f skittle s an d pian o an d violi n music . Th e whol e scene i s illuminate d wit h festiv e lantern s an d reache s it s clima x wit h th e exploding o f fireworks as Sofya resolve s to yield t o Platonov. By contrast, Part Two, which takes place some hours later by a railway line in the forest outside Platonov's schoolhouse , is a more obviousl y contrived sequenc e of dualogues, beginnin g wit h Osi p tellin g Sash a abou t hi s passio n fo r Ann a Petrovna i n what i s virtually a self-contained shor t story , an d culminatin g in a scene of pure melodrama whe n Osi p pulls Sasha to safety a s the train screeches past . I n between , Chekho v resort s t o a rang e o f stoc k devices : concealments behin d trees , eavesdropping , franti c soliloquies , comi c drunken interlude s - eve n th e familia r lette r o f assignation , delivere d b y Sofya's maid . Act Three, set in the schoolroom thre e weeks later, opens with Platono v drunk an d dishevelled , havin g bee n abandone d b y Sasha. The sequenc e of one-to-one confrontations resumes , but gains variety from a drinking bou t between Platono v an d Ann a whic h Chekho v contrive s t o mak e bot h farcical an d tender , an d a n hilariou s roug h an d tumbl e fro m whic h Osip , the mos t deferentia l o f assassins , readily desist s a s soo n a s Sash a returns . Osip's own dispatch the next day in Act Four is accomplished by the young Chekhov with insouciant brevity: SCENE II I

[ANNA comes in and looks out of the window] SERGEI [with a gesture of despair]. Thi s i s th e absolut e end ! [Pause.] What's going on out there? 45 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

EDWARD BRAU N A N N A Osip' s been lynched by the villagers. SERGEI Already ? A N N A Yes , near the well. Do you see? There he is. SERGEI [Looks out of the window]. Well, it serves him right. [Pause.] A N N A Hear d the news, dear? They say Platonov's made himself scarce

... (Hingley, p. 140)

Apart fro m on e passin g referenc e thi s i s th e las t w e hea r o f Osip , bu t th e other tangle s i n th e plo t tak e rathe r mor e unravellin g a s th e denouemen t gets further complicated , first b y the news o f Sasha's secon d suicid e attemp t (this tim e b y swallowin g matches) , an d the n b y Mari a enterin g th e competition fo r Platonov' s favours . Wit h Platono v increasingl y deliriou s from alcoho l abuse , seein g to y soldier s wit h pointe d cap s an d a tin y pian o crawling ove r Anna' s breast , th e moo d o f hysteri a intensifies , reachin g it s climax o f blac k farc e i n th e final scen e whe n Sofy a rummage s i n a drawe r to find a revolver , first fires a t Platono v an d misses , the n evade s Maria' s attempts t o shiel d hi m an d shoot s hi m point-blan k i n the chest . Amidst th e grief an d confusio n i t i s Triletsk y wh o pronounce s Platonov' s epitaph : 'Life's onl y wort h a copeck . Goodbye , Michael , you'v e los t you r copeck . What ar e yo u al l gogglin g at ? H e sho t himself . Th e party' s over . [Weeps.] Who ca n I celebrat e you r funera l with ? Fools ! Yo u couldn' t loo k afte r Platonov.' (Hingley , p. 162 ) Unsurprisingly, man y critic s hav e see n littl e mor e i n Platonov tha n th e adumbration o f themes an d character s tha t Chekho v wa s to return t o in his mature play s an d shor t stories . No t al l hav e bee n a s dismissiv e a s F . L . Lucas wh o sa w i t a s simpl y 'chaotic , unconvincin g an d tedious' 4 o r Laurence Senelick , wh o calle d i t a 'protracte d piec e o f juvenilia'. 5 Michae l Frayn, i n a perceptiv e introductio n t o Wild Honey, hi s ow n reworkin g o f the play , acknowledge s al l it s obviou s defect s yet describe s i t a s ' a remarkable an d tantalisin g work ' possessin g 'precociou s an d inimitabl e virtues' (Frayn , p . viii) . Kennet h Tyna n wa s eve n mor e enthusiasti c i n hi s review o f th e Londo n premier e i n i960 : 'I f anyon e stil l live s wh o need s proof o f Chekhov' s genius , le t hi m g o an d se e Platonov . . . I t make s a singular impression ; a s i f a Russia n nove l o f countr y lif e ha d bee n dramatized b y Georges Feydeau an d then handed ove r to Chekho v fo r tota l rewriting . . .' 6 I n perhap s th e mos t penetratin g analysi s o f all , Mikhai l Gromov writes : 'Th e pla y wa s pu t togethe r wit h a profligac y tha t wa s inexcusable, an d conceivabl e onl y i n th e writer' s youth . A t on e an d th e same time it is a drama, a comedy an d a vaudeville; o r more accurately , it is not an y on e o f thes e three . Bu t tha t said , i t i s chaotic i n a wa y tha t bor e a remarkable resemblance to the reality o f Russian life.' 7 What Gromo v identifie s i s the profoun d sens e i n whic h th e moo d o f th e 46 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

From Flatonov to Piano play and, in particular, tha t o f its central character, reflect s th e state o f post emancipation Russi a i n th e 1880s . Glagolie v senio r say s a s muc h t o Ann a Petrovna earl y in Act One : Well - I think Platonov' s a super b exampl e o f moder n vagueness . He' s th e hero of our best modern novel, one that hasn't yet been written, I'm sorr y to say. [Laughs.] Vaguenes s seem s t o m e typica l o f moder n society , an d you r Russian novelist senses it. He's baffled an d bewildered, he has nothing to hold on to, he doesn't understand . . . Everything's so vague and blurred - it' s one great chaoti c mess . An d it' s thi s vaguenes s whic h th e sagaciou s Platono v typifies, I think. (Hingley , p. 21) One majo r reaso n fo r thi s 'vagueness' , thi s los s o f direction , i s suggeste d by th e play' s origina l title , Fatherlessness. Wit h th e sol e exceptio n o f Isaa c Vengerovich ( a Jew, an d henc e a n outsider) , th e entir e younge r generatio n treats th e depravit y an d materialis m o f thei r elder s wit h feeling s tha t rang e from embarrassmen t t o outrage . I n th e depth s o f drunke n self-disgust , Platonov rail s a t his late parents: 'Depraved , drunke n fool s - alway s drunk , the mother a fool, th e father a drunk. Father , mothe r -. Father -. Rot i n you r graves fo r th e rotte n mes s yo u mad e o f m y poo r lif e wit h you r drunke n folly' (Hingley , p . 105) . Wha t th e pla y i s tryin g t o convey , though , i s a picture o f a whol e wa y o f lif e i n termina l decline . A s th e Sovie t criti c Berkovsky ha s written, 'Platonov depict s th e collaps e o f the country estate , the declin e o f th e gentry , overblown , extravagant , abundan t i n scandal s and excess . And here , the end o f th e gentry i s intertwined wit h th e end o f a whole age : Platonov i s a n attemp t t o writ e a n extende d epitap h t o th e nineteenth centur y in whose closing years it was written.' 8 Berkovsky furthe r observe s tha t Platono v himsel f wa s a n exceptiona l phenomenon: 'I n everyda y life , i n th e literatur e o f th e populist s an d thei r like-minded contemporaries , th e villag e schoolmaste r wa s regarde d a s a n exemplary individual , th e servan t o f wha t wa s goo d an d true . I n th e schoolmaster Platono v ther e i s nothin g a t al l schoolmasterly . On e doesn' t really believ e tha t h e i s capabl e o f teachin g anyon e anything , b e i t hand writing o r arithmetic.' 9 Whe n h e i s not engage d i n fits o f self-loathing , th e one thing tha t engage s hi s still-shar p intellec t i s the denunciatio n o f others , and wha t bring s hi m t o th e poin t o f suicid e i s th e realisatio n tha t h e i s n o better tha n they are. He is often describe d a s a rural Do n Juan, bu t thi s is to ignore th e fac t tha t i t i s th e wome n who , on e afte r another , thro w themselves heedlessl y a t him . A s Gromo v point s out , Chekho v neve r sought an y explanatio n fo r love , bu t simpl y accepte d it s irrationality . I n Platonov th e fac t tha t a drunken , boorish , inconstan t nonentit y i s th e object o f fou r attractiv e women' s desir e i s indicativ e bot h o f th e singula r 47 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

EDWARD BRAU N

charmlessness o f al l othe r availabl e partner s an d o f th e absurdit y o f th e world they live in. In 1928 , fiv e year s afte r it s publication , Platonov wa s give n it s worl d premiere i n Gera , south-eas t Germany , i n a version b y Rene Fiilop-Mille r entitled Der unnutzige Mensch Platonoff (That Useless Person Platonov). The followin g Januar y thi s versio n wa s performe d i n Prague , firs t i n German an d the n i n Czech . Production s i n Turin , Mila n an d Rom e followed, the n i n 194 0 th e Provincetow n Playhouse , Massachusetts , pre sented th e firs t performanc e o f th e pla y i n English , transmogrifie d int o Fireworks on the James. It was first stage d in French as Ce fou de Platonov on 17 May 195 6 at the Bordeaux Festival, with Jean Vilar playing the title role in his own production with the Theatre National Populaire. Finally, in 1957 th e pla y wa s give n it s Russia n premier e a s Platonov at th e Pushki n Theatre in Pskov. The critic of the Moscow journal Teatr was withering in her scor n for th e production an d could find n o justification fo r stagin g the play at all. Nevertheless, it was revived in i960 a t the Vakhtangov Theatre in Mosco w t o mar k th e centenar y o f Chekhov' s birth . Usin g a n abridge d version with the part of Maria Grekova cut completely, Alexandra Remizova's inventiv e productio n emphasise d th e play' s comi c aspect s an d wa s enthusiastically receive d b y th e public . Again , though , th e critic s wer e unconvinced tha t i t was worth exhumin g from th e pre-history o f Chekho vian drama : 'It' s no t eve n Antosh a Chekhonte , le t alon e Chekhov' , concluded Marianna Stroeva. 10 Platonov was publishe d i n Londo n i n 195 2 i n a n abridge d versio n b y Basil Ashmor e calle d Don Juan (in the Russian Manner) i n which , strangely, Anna Petrovna become s a countess an d Platonov is not sho t bu t dies fro m hi s illness . I t wa s thi s versio n tha t wa s use d fo r th e Britis h premiere i n 195 9 a t the Nottingham Playhouse , directed b y Val May with Robert Lang as Platonov.11 The play was first see n in London a t the Royal Court Theatr e o n 1 3 Octobe r i960 , directe d b y George Devine an d John Blatchley. Fo r thi s productio n Dmitr i Makaroff' s translatio n wa s heavil y cut to a running time of three hours, with Glagoliev junior discarde d bu t a village priest added. With Rex Harrison a s Platonov and Rachel Roberts as Anna Petrovna, the production was one of the hits of the season, playing to 91 pe r cen t capacit y fo r 4 4 performances . Unlik e Kennet h Tynan , mos t critics wer e throw n int o confusio n b y th e production . Milto n Shulma n described i t a s 'an outrageou s burlesqu e . . . with a s much resemblance t o Chekhov a s Sweeney Todd\ whils t other s complaine d tha t i t faile d t o guide th e spectato r int o ' a stabl e emotiona l position' . I n his biograph y of George Devine, Irving Wardle recalls: 'Platonov was not the most polished of shows , bu t it s suprem e virtu e wa s tha t i t di d avoi d fixe d emotiona l

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

From Flatonov to Piano positions. I n plac e o f th e expecte d journe y throug h th e flat Chekhovia n landscape, i t substitute d a n exhilaratin g switchbac k rid e betwee n th e extremes o f melodramatic hysteri a an d broa d farce.' 12 The nex t majo r Britis h reviva l wa s i n 198 4 whe n th e Nationa l Theatr e staged Christophe r Morahan' s productio n o f a ne w versio n b y Michae l Frayn entitle d Wild Honey wit h a cas t tha t include d Ia n McKelle n a s Platonov an d Charlott e Cornwel l a s Anna Petrovna . Havin g rejected al l the previous title s because o f their suggestio n that th e action centres exclusivel y on the one character, Fray n explain s hi s own choice : The bes t titl e t o dat e seem s t o m e Ale x Szogyi' s A Country Scandal [New York,i96o]. But Chekhov himself ha s provided an even better one in the text. The pla y cover s th e perio d o f th e Voynitzevs ' honeymoo n (an d it s cata strophic end). Anna Petrovna refers t o it in a phrase that seem s to include all the variou s sexua l intrigue s - ' a mont h o f wil d honey ' (i n th e origina l ' a month smeare d with wild honey'). This seems to me to evoke precisely bot h the wayward sweetness of forbidden sexua l attraction, and the intense feeling of summer that pervades the play. (Frayn , p. xiv) To Frayn, Anna Petrovn a i s a no less remarkable creatio n tha n Platonov : She is a most surprisin g character to find i n a nineteenth-century play . There are plenty of heroines at the time who inspire erotic feelings in men (and who usually end up dead o r disfigured fo r thei r pains) . . . But where else is there one who is permitted to express such shining physical desire, and to remain though punished , i t i s true , b y th e los s o f he r estat e - essentiall y unhumi liated? (Frayn , p. viii) Whilst Ann a Petrovn a i s without precedent , sh e initiates a sequence o f self assertive wome n i n Chekhov' s play s whic h include s Arkadina , Masha , Natasha an d Lyubo v Andreevna . However , non e o f thes e pursue s th e object o f he r desir e wit h quit e th e sam e fran k sexua l inten t o r freedo m from guilt , an d non e share s Anna' s acut e awarenes s o f he r pligh t a s a n educated woma n wit h no occupation . Starting fro m th e assumptio n tha t Chekhov' s tex t wa s a roug h draf t rather tha n a finished play , Fray n undertoo k a fa r mor e radica l revisio n than an y o f hi s predecessors , preservin g th e mai n character s bu t givin g th e action a muc h mor e tightl y focusse d dramati c shape . Whol e sub-plot s ar e removed, th e sequenc e o f scene s i s reorganised , an d th e numbe r o f characters i s reduced fro m twent y t o sixteen , wit h element s o f Vengerovic h senior, Bugro v an d Shcherbu k incorporate d i n Glagolie v senio r an d Petrin . A frequent targe t fo r criticis m i n th e origina l tex t hav e bee n th e apparentl y uncontrolled lurche s fro m on e moo d t o another , an d thi s i s something tha t Frayn addresses , thoug h withou t sacrificin g th e essentia l element s o f farce .

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

EDWARD BRAU N

In his introduction h e write s ' I have trie d t o resolv e th e ton e o f th e pla y b y reducing th e melodrama an d th e editorialising , an d b y moving fro m lighte r comedy a t th e beginning , throug h farce , t o th e darke r an d mor e painfu l comedy o f th e fina l scenes. ' (Frayn , p . xiv) . Frayn's conclusio n i s se t i n th e schoolhouse an d is , i f anything , eve n blacke r farc e tha n th e original , wit h both Sofy a an d Ann a vyin g t o shoo t Platono v a s Mari a shield s hi m an d Sasha beg s them t o kill he r instead . H e elude s the m al l b y jumping throug h the window, bu t a s they pursue him into the darkness : He steps onto the railway line and runs in the opposite direction - downstage - glancing back over his shoulder at them like a fugitive. Then he stops, blinded by the brilliant headlight of the train approaching from behind the heads of the audience, its whistle screaming. He staggers back a step or two, trying to wave the train away like the flies. Then sudden blackness, and the great roar of the train, its note falling as it passes us. The red tail light of the train appears at the front of the stage and dwindles rapidly into the smoke left by the locomotive. There is a smell of sulphur in the air. Curtain. (Frayn, p. 104) Thus, the fate fro m whic h th e blameless Sash a ha s been snatche d a t the en d of Ac t Tw o finall y claim s Platono v himself . Th e credi t fo r it s inventio n i s entirely Frayn's , bu t mostl y th e wor k tha t h e di d involve d cuttin g an d reorganising th e origina l material , creatin g a tightl y structure d tex t tha t stands compariso n wit h Ivanov an d The Seagull, i f no t wit h Chekhov' s mature works . Writing i n The Guardian, Michae l Billingto n describe d i t a s 'a brillian t piec e o f theatr e bearin g th e stigmat a o f genius' , whils t i n The Observer Michae l Ratcliff e said : 'Th e effec t i s o f a n ol d cloc k completel y taken apar t an d give n a ne w movement . I t i s stil l Chekhov , bu t i t i s als o Frayn.' 13 Openin g o n 1 9 Jul y 1984 , Wild Honey ra n i n th e Nationa l Theatre's repertoir e i n th e Lyttelto n Theatr e unti l 1 7 Augus t th e followin g year. Since the earl y day s o f th e silen t cinem a Chekho v ha s regularl y attracte d the attentio n o f Russia n film-makers , althoug h i t ha s bee n th e shor t storie s with thei r laconi c narrativ e styl e an d thei r arrestin g imager y tha t hav e yielded th e mos t amenabl e material , th e fines t exampl e bein g Josep h Heifetz's The Lady with the Little Dog (1959) . However , a s Mikhai l Gromov suggests , if Platonov i s widely know n toda y i t i s thanks largel y t o the fil m versio n b y Alexande r Adabashia n an d Nikit a Mikhalkov , directe d by Mikhalkov an d release d b y Mosfilm i n 197 6 a s An Unfinished Piece for Mechanical Piano. Takin g it s title from a random ide a i n on e o f Chekhov' s notebooks, th e screenpla y dispense s wit h al l th e melodramati c element s o f the origina l t o achiev e a fa r mor e compresse d narrativ e se t entirel y i n th e Voinitsev countr y hous e an d it s woode d surroundings , an d runnin g fro m

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

From Flatonov to Piano

afternoon t o sunris e th e next day . All the sub-plot s ar e discarded: Mari a Grekova, Osi p an d Vengerovic h senio r ar e cut ; ther e ar e n o suicid e attempts by Sasha; Platonov's affair wit h Sofya i s never consummated; and Petrin continues his benevolent underwriting of the estate, with no threat of eviction. On th e othe r hand , th e late general' s drinkin g partner , Shcherbuk , ha s two spinste r daughter s (restore d fro m a n early draf t o f the original text ) and a young nephew, Petya. There is also a poignant scene in the middle of the dinne r part y whe n Gorokhov , a clerk fro m a nearby factory , appear s and entreat s th e carousin g D r Triletsk y t o visi t hi s sic k wife , onl y t o be fobbed of f wit h a vague promis e o f 'tomorrow , o r th e day after withou t fail'. Thoug h adapte d fro m a scene in the original pla y when th e drunken Triletsky refuse s t o ten d Glagoliev , th e episod e coul d easil y b e on e of Chekhov's shor t stories . Similarly, Platonov tells the assembled company a story that he says he 'read recently ' bu t which is really a barely conceale d account o f his youthful lov e affair wit h Sofya. I n fact, severa l of the actual stories furnish idea s and snatches of dialogue for the film scenario, notably 'The Russia n Master','Thre e Years' , 'M y Life' an d 'At a Country House' , from whic h th e characte r o f th e ultra-reactionar y Shcherbu k i s largel y taken. The overal l resul t i s a fluid narrativ e whic h capture s th e languorou s passage of high summer , close in style to the late plays with thei r seamles s interweaving o f th e inconsequentia l an d th e dramatic . A s Alexande r Svobodin observes , the action is punctuated wit h a number o f 'refrains'. 14 There ar e repeate d long-shot s o f th e resentfu l manservan t Yako v vainl y trying to fish a chair out of a pond where some feckless maste r o r mistress has dumpe d it . At intervals, th e idle chatte r o f Anna Petrovna' s guest s is interrupted b y the loud snorin g of Triletsky senior . We see the small figure of Petya, in tranquil contras t to the posturing grown-ups, happily roamin g the countryside and finally in carefree slumber . Thus, a sense of continuity, of lif e repeatin g itself , i s established , retardin g th e film's temp o an d ironically counterpointing the absurdity of the tragi-comic collisions. The first hal f o f th e film reache s it s clima x whe n Ann a Petrovn a summons her guests to the terrace to marvel a t the young peasant Zakha r effortlessly playin g Chopi n o n a pian o transporte d i n fo r th e occasio n regardless o f cost . A s the y gap e i n incredulity , sh e order s th e youn g virtuoso t o lif t hi s hand s fro m th e keyboard , whereupo n th e pian o i s revealed a s 'mechanical' , a pianol a whic h continue s t o pla y o f it s own accord. T o Platonov's embarrasse d scor n Sash a faint s wit h shock , whils t Shcherbuk splutter s wit h relief , confirme d i n hi s assertio n tha t n o 'filth y peasant' coul d eve r achiev e suc h artistr y - onl y to be coolly reminde d by

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

EDWARD BRAU N

Petrin tha t he , a mer e filthy peasant , i s underwritin g th e estat e an d al l it s guests' frivolities . The closin g sequenc e coul d no t b e furthe r remove d fro m th e origina l text, bu t owe s more than a little to the tragi-comic anti-clima x o f Act Thre e of Uncle Vanya, an d eve n mor e t o Sonya' s radian t word s o f consolatio n t o the unhapp y Vany a a t th e play' s conclusion . I n despai r an d self-loathin g Platonov attempt s suicid e b y plungin g headlon g int o th e rive r belo w th e house - onl y t o find himsel f barel y knee-dee p i n wate r an d i n th e all forgiving embrac e o f Sasha , wh o says : 'Mishenka , you'r e tired , yo u mus t rest an d the n we'l l b e happy again ! And w e shal l liv e fo r a long , lon g tim e . . . and w e shal l b e lucky. . . and w e shal l se e a bright , new , pur e life , an d fine ne w peopl e wh o will understan d an d forgiv e us . Onl y w e mus t love , love, Mishenka ! A s long a s we love , w e shal l liv e for a long, lon g tim e an d be happ y . . .' 15 A s th e remainin g guest s com e dow n th e hil l an d hel p Platonov an d Sash a fro m th e rive r w e se e th e landscap e stil l mois t fro m yesterday's rain , glistenin g i n th e first ray s o f th e sun , an d hea r a steame r hooting o n the river, peasants singin g in the fields on the far bank . Admiring th e teasingl y ope n ending s o f Chekhov' s shor t stories , Mi khalkov argue s tha t i n hi s ver y ordinarines s Platono v doe s no t meri t a violently melodramatic death , wherea s Sasha is the only one in our film who understands what her life is for and why she has to go on living . .. O f course, love is not the panacea for al l sufferin g and misfortune. At this particular moment it acts as a stimulus. I don't know if i t will b e permanent, eve n i f i t will las t fo r lon g . . . I wanted t o en d the picture on an upbeat, not because it's more comforting tha t way, but because it's something quit e inherent in the nature an d history of Russian ar t - faith , hope, love.16 Yet th e closin g sho t o f th e film, o f Pety a i n obliviou s slumber , hi s slende r back golde n i n th e sun' s rays , restore s ironi c perspectiv e t o th e pett y squabbling o f th e adul t world , leavin g th e conclusio n ope n t o th e viewer' s interpretation. In 199 0 Platonov underwen t yet anothe r metamorphosi s whe n Trevo r Griffiths reworke d Mikhalko v an d Adabashian' s screenpla y a s a 'theatrica l mediation' entitle d Piano, whic h wa s directe d b y Howar d Davie s an d presented i n th e Roya l Nationa l Theatre' s Cotteslo e auditoriu m o n 8 August. I n hi s prefac e t o th e publishe d tex t Griffith s explain s it s relation ship to the source material : The Russian film-makers, whether ou t o f respec t o r simpl e unconcern, hav e allowed me to plunder their own piece in order to find my own; and I'm truly grateful fo r the generous space they've afforded me . If I call Piano a new play, 52Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

From Flatonov to Piano then it is in part becaus e I have no right to saddle them (o r indeed Chekhov ) with th e piec e I'v e finally fashioned . Fo r whil e i n respec t o f character , relationship, inciden t an d dramati c terrain , Piano draws heavil y o n thes e several ur-works , there i s yet within it , a t the leve l o f tone , language, form , means and intentions something other than what they have sought to say, for which I must both claim and accept full responsibility. 17 Amplifying thi s 'somethin g other' , h e quote s Raymon d Williams ' definitio n of nineteenth-century realis m from hi s Modern Tragedy (1966): it was a way o f seein g the world i n which i t was possible t o experienc e th e quality o f a whole wa y o f lif e throug h th e qualitie s o f individua l me n an d women. Thus, a personal breakdow n was a genuine socia l fact, an d a social breakdown was lived and known in direct personal experienc e . . . Chekhov is the realist of breakdown, on a significantly total scale. 18 This sens e o f breakdown , bot h persona l an d social , i s conveye d i n Chekhov's origina l tex t throug h th e overal l moo d o f mora l disintegratio n and, mos t acutely , throug h th e bitte r inter-generationa l hostilities . Mi khalkov reinforce s th e impressio n o f socia l breakdow n b y strippin g awa y some o f th e distractin g eroti c entanglements , b y introducing th e Gorokho v episode, b y stressin g th e banalit y o f Serge i an d Sofya' s plan s t o 'improve ' the lo t o f th e peasantry , an d b y strengthenin g th e Petrin-Shcherbu k antithesis. Griffiths retain s thes e elements an d follow s th e film's main story line, whils t creatin g a mise en scene tha t translate s th e poetr y an d th e incongruity o f th e origina l int o vivi d stag e imagery . Thus , instea d o f vainl y trying to fish a chair fro m a pond, Yash a rescue s a mysteriously abandone d corset fro m a tree, carrying i t indoors o n the tip o f a 'pole held like a lance' (Griffiths, p . 8) ; a s th e fireworks displa y start s i n Ac t Two , 'The first of a series of brilliant flare-like explosions convulsing their settled world order. Sophia moves quickly through empty space, a lamp in her hand, spectral in the weird off-white glow. Platonov appears in her wake: he wears a long off-white open burberry, mid-calf, like a Long Rider's coat' (Griffiths , p. 45) ; whe n Glagolie v propose s t o Anna , 'Another flare washes the terrace. Anna sits in a chair, legs crossed, foot swinging softly forward and back. Porfiry kneels on one knee before her, head slightly bowed, eyes fixed on the swinging ankle-boot, rabbit to snake' (Griffiths , p . 47) . Platonov' s botched suicid e attempt i s sublime tragi-comedy : He climbs out, ready to leap. Black. Light up. Sashenka appears on the bridge almost at once. A deep thudding splash below. She stares down in almost comical horror, fingers stuffed in her mouth. Rushes from the bridge. A slow salmony blush begins to colour the space. Silence. A figure slowly rises, down 53 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

EDWARD BRAU N

below. Platonov, drenched to the skin, fetlock deep in shallow water. He stares hopelessly at the heavens. PLATONOV Yo

u make it hard, Lord. Really. (Griffiths

, p. 54)

Elsewhere, ther e ar e significan t change s t o the screenplay . The dat e o f the action i s advance d t o th e earl y summe r o f 1904 , capturin g 'tha t eerie , humid momen t whic h precede s th e stor m o f disintegratio n an d defeat'. 19 Petrin provide s tw o coordinates fo r th e date , in Act Two by reading fro m his newspape r a repor t o f th e strik e o f al l tw o thousan d worker s a t th e Putilov plant in Moscow, then at the final curtain by reporting the death on 15 Jul y o f 'th e playwrigh t Anto n Chekhov ' a t th e Blac k Fores t Sp a o f Badenweiler, quotin g hi s las t words : 'It' s a lon g tim e sinc e I dran k champagne.' Consistent with this historical repositioning is the far greater prominenc e given t o th e 'lowe r orders' , correctin g wha t Griffith s perceive s a s a surprising imbalance in the dramatic works: 'It's amazing how few peasants there ar e i n Chekhov' s play s whe n the y bubbl e al l throug h hi s stories.' 20 Like Mikhalkov, he rejects the maverick figure of the horse-thief Osip , but gives a crucial role to Radish, a character derived from th e house painter of the sam e nam e i n th e stor y 'M y Life ' (1896). 21 Radish , 'gaun t an d cropped', i s first see n wit h th e younge r Zakha r i n th e openin g scene , manoeuvring a massiv e wrappe d objec t (late r reveale d a s th e pianola ) across a narrow plan k bridge . As they paus e fo r breat h Radis h retell s the story o f his earlier life a s a painter, a story of exploitation, physica l abuse, wrongful arres t and ultimately four years' penal servitude, during which he learned reading , writin g an d 'thinking' , whic h ha s t o b e learne d 'Lik e making bombs . An d layin g them ' (Griffiths , p . 3). Th e scen e end s wit h Zakhar askin g Radis h wha t h e believe s in . H e replies : 'Believ e in , mayb e not. But there are things I know. . . Grass dies. Iron rusts. Lies eat the soul. Everything's possible' (Griffiths , p . 4). At the play's conclusion Radish an d T,2^\\zt are see n onc e mor e o n th e bridge , 'lookin g dow n o n the spectre s below'. A s Anna vainl y reassure s he r guest s tha t 'everythin g wil l b e a s it was', Radish echoes his words from th e opening scene, ending with 'Everything's possible. ' Thi s time , however, Pety a i s with the m o n th e bridge , a bright young hope for the future, more Gorky than Chekhov. As well as positioning Piano at a specific historical conjuncture, Griffith s was equally concerned to give the play a contemporary resonance; referring to Williams' definition o f Chekhov a s 'the realist o f breakdown' h e writes: 'Should Piano prove to be about anything at all, I suspect it may prove, like its illustrious forebears , t o b e about jus t this fel t sens e of breakdow n an d deadlock; an d thus perhaps, in a nicely perverse irony, about wha t it's like 54 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

From Platonov to Piano

to b e livin g i n ou r ow n post-capitalist , post-socialist , post-realist , post modern times.' 22 Rathe r a s h e ha d don e previousl y i n hi s versio n o f The Cherry Orchard, 23 Griffith s employ s judiciousl y plante d neologism s i n order 't o arc h the play disconcertingl y forwar d fro m tim e to time into the audience's lap'.24 Notwithstanding Irvin g Wardle' s complain t tha t '[Griffiths ] ha s trans formed a tragi-comed y int o a vindictiv e class-wa r fable', 25 th e grea t majority o f critic s responde d enthusiasticall y t o th e pla y an d t o Howar d Davies' fluidl y orchestrate d production . Th e mos t penetratin g o f them , John Peter wrote: Platonov was a portrait o f it s ow n time , whereas , i n Piano, Griffiths look s back o n turn-of-the-centur y Russi a fro m th e vantag e poin t o f history . Th e difference i s like that betwee n a diagnosis an d a case-history compile d afte r the patient's death . . . This play is much more than a pastiche: it is a homage to Chekhov and to Russia, and it is animated b y the black, clownish humour of th e transcendental , surrealis t joker s who ligh t u p Russian literatur e fro m Gogol and Dostoyevsky to Chekhov and Nabokov. 26

An Unfinished Piece for Mechanical Piano won the Golde n Shel l award for bes t film a t the 197 7 San Sebastian film festival; Wild Honey has been revived sinc e 198 4 i n place s a s fa r apar t a s Israel , Belgium , Scandinavia , South Africa, Australi a an d New Zealand; ther e have bee n recent productions o f Piano in German y an d Japan . I n Jul y 199 7 th e remarkabl e S t Petersburg Maly Theatre under Lev Dodin presented a version of Platonov (called 'A Play without a Title') in Weimar which left muc h of the original text intac t an d ha d a running tim e o f fou r hours . Together, thes e produc tions reaffirm th e continuing inspiration o f Chekhov's origina l conception : its erratically grotesque dramaturgy, its psychological acuity and, above all, its prescient sensing of a crucial turning point in Russian history. NOTES 1 Se e Mikhai l Gromov , Kniga o Chekhove, Moscow , 1989 , pp . 49-58; als o Michael Frayn, Wild Honey, London and New York, 1985, pp. vii-xviii. 2 Th e play-texts from which page numbers are quoted in the text are: Platonov in Ronald Hingley , trans , an d ed. , The Oxford Chekhov, vol.11, London , 1967 ; Michael Frayn , Wild Honey, 1985 ; Trevo r Griffiths , Piano, London , 1990 . Subsequently referred to as Hingley, Frayn and Griffiths . 3 I t i s tru e tha t no t unti l The Cherry Orchard did Chekho v succee d finally in eliminating th e gunshot fro m hi s plays (whils t parodying i t with Yepikhodov' s threat o f suicid e in Act Two), but i n Platonov there ar e two murde r attempts , the secon d successful , tw o faile d suicide s wit h a thir d contemplated , an d a lynching (albeit offstage) . 55 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

EDWARD BRAU N

4 F . L . Lucas , The Drama of Chekhov, Synge, Yeats and Pirandello, London ,

1963, p. 23.

5 Laurenc e Senelick , Anton Chekhov, Basingstok e an d London, 1985 , p. 30 . 6 Kennet h Tynan, Tynan Right and Left, London , 1967 , p. 39 . 7 Mikhai l Gromov , Kniga o Chekhove, p . 56 . 8 N . Berkovskii , 'Chekhov . O t rasskazo v i povestei k dramaturgi i (okonchanie)' , Russkaya literatura, 1 , 1966 , p. 15 . 9 Ibid., p . 16 . 10 Quote d i n Kniga o Chekhove, pp . 58-59 . 11 Fo r a brief revie w se e Plays and Players, Ma y 1959 , p. 32 . 12 Fo r a n accoun t o f th e productio n an d it s critica l receptio n se e Irvin g Wardle , The Theatres of George Devine, London , 1978 , pp. 220-224 . 13 Quote d i n Frayn, p. i . 14 'Voln y Chekhov' , Iskusstvo kino 10 , 1977 , p. 125 . 15 Unpublishe d screenpla y 'Mekhanicheskoe pianino', pp . 9 7 - 8 . 16 Nikit a Mikhalkov , 'Mo y Chekhov ' i n Mosfilm via: Raztnyshleniya o filmakh, Moscow, 1980 , pp. 107 , 132 . 17 Author' s Prefac e t o Piano, London , 1990 . Unnumbered . 18 Raymon d Williams , Modern Tragedy, London , 1966 , p. 139 . 19 Joh n Peter , 'Eavesdroppin g o n a Doom-lade n Past' , i n The Sunday Times, 1 2 August 1990 . 20 Quote d i n the National Theatr e programm e fo r Piano, p . 4 . 21 'Red'ka ' i n the original . See Appendix 1 . 22 Prefac e t o Piano. 23 Firs t performe d a t th e Nottingha m Playhouse , 1 0 Marc h 1977 , directe d b y Richard Eyre . See Appendix 2 . 24 Lette r t o Edward Braun , 3 0 July 1990 . Examples include : 'you miserabl e ba g of snot, I'l l smas h you r fac e in' ; 'there' s femal e liberatio n fo r you' ; 'don' t b e s o bourgeois'; 'spar e m e th e blood y sermon' ; ' I don' t giv e a weasel' s tosse r wha t you think o f me'. 25 'Chekho v Stole n fro m Himself , i n The Independent on Sunday, 1 2 Augus t 1990.

26 The Sunday Times, 12 August 1990.

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

VERA GOTTLIE B

Chekhov's one-ac t play s and th e full-length play s

There is a paradox abou t Chekhov' s one-ac t plays: although performed a s frequently a s Pinter's shor t plays, or Beckett's - an d given the much longer period o f tim e sinc e thei r creatio n - muc h les s ha s actuall y bee n writte n about them. This ma y b e du e t o Chekhov' s ow n dismissiv e estimatio n o f the m a s 'amusing trifles' , an d becaus e critic s hav e tende d t o concentrat e o n hi s major works . There is, however, a marked correlation betwee n the one-act plays an d th e majo r play s (an d equall y som e o f th e shor t stories) . Thi s relates t o th e use o f comi c techniques, t o th e inversio n o f 'stock ' conven tions, t o hi s characterisation , an d th e exten t t o whic h actio n arise s fro m character, rather than plot. It is in some of the short plays that one may see the absence of plot, an d th e developin g use of actio n which , characteristi cally Chekhovian , i s motivate d b y interna l - an d ofte n subtextua l characterisation an d dialogue . The shor t play s requir e redefinitio n withi n the contex t o f th e theatrica l convention s o f th e tim e and a s a major an d serious part of Chekhov's achievement. Chekhov does not make the case easy for anyone wishing to demonstrate that thes e play s are important, an d mor e tha n merel y 'amusin g trifles' . Again an d agai n h e dismisse s them , a s in a letter o f 2 2 February 188 8 t o the poet Yakov Polonsky: 'Having nothing better to do, I wrote a silly little French vaudevill e unde r th e titl e The Bear.' 1 Similarly, Nemirovich-Dan chenko wrot e that : 'Chekho v ofte n advise d m e t o writ e vaudeville s . . . because they were sure to bring me in a good income.' 2 It seeme d that fo r Chekhov the y wer e th e theatrica l equivalen t o f th e comic shor t storie s he dashed off fo r differen t paper s an d journals - an d which did, in fact, brin g in an income. In his lifetime, he earned more from the frequently performe d short play s tha n th e muc h misunderstoo d full-lengt h plays , althoug h thi s was partly becaus e o f the custom o f 'benefi t nights ' - performance s t o aid particular actor s (suc h a s th e on e Svetlovido v ha s jus t complete d whe n Swan Song begins) . Chekho v i n fac t dedicate d The Bear t o th e grea t 57 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

VERA GOTTLIE B

Russian comi c actor , Solovtsov , an d th e pla y wa s ofte n performe d a s a 'benefit play' or - lik e most of the others - a curtain-raiser. The evidence demonstrates, however, that Chekho v disparaged the short plays no more than he did all of his work, and it is also significant tha t they were written over exactly the same period as the great plays - startin g with On the High Road in 1885, and finishing with the last of six versions of On the Harmfulness of Tobacco (sometimes translate d a s Smoking is Bad for You) in the same year as Three Sisters - 1903 . The fact tha t he did rewrite that pla y si x time s suggest s a fa r mor e seriou s intentio n i n usin g th e vaudeville form, an d with each version, the play becomes less exaggerated - an d more serious. He makes the point himself i n a letter to Suvorin afte r he had written al l of the short plays with the exception of the final versio n of On the Harmfulness of Tobacco: 'I t is much easier to write a play about Socrates tha n abou t a cook , whic h merel y demonstrate s tha t I d o no t regard th e writin g o f vaudeville s a s a frivolou s occupation . No r d o yo u consider it as such, much as you may pretend that it is nothing but a lot of frivolous nonsense.' 3 In common wit h th e full-length plays , most o f what Chekho v describe d as 'vaudevilles' have a subtitle. Just as Uncle Vanya is subtitled Scenes from Country Life, s o Swan Song is calle d A Dramatic Study in One Act, a s indeed is Tatyana Repina ('drama' meanin g a play of a serious nature). As with al l o f Chekhov' s plays , on e ignore s hi s subtitle s a t one' s peri l sinc e they indicate not only the theatrical genre and apparent conventions which he wa s utilisin g i n orde r t o subver t thos e conventions , bu t als o sugges t intention, mood and atmosphere. Thus, On the Harmfulness of Tobacco is subtitled A Monologue in One Act, an d The Wedding, A Play in One Act. Only four o f his short plays are actually called 'farces' o r 'vaudevilles': The Bear; The Proposal; A Tragic Role (sometimes translated , a la Moliere, as The Reluctant Tragedian) and Jubilee (ofte n translate d a s The Anniversary). On the High Road is the only on e without a subtitle, althoug h i t is clearly ' a drama' , dramatise d b y Chekho v fro m hi s ow n (ver y different ) short story, 'In Autumn' (1883) . It has two other aspect s which are unique in Chekhov's dramaturgy , thoug h no t th e short stories . First, it is the only play withou t an y comed y i n it ; an d second , i t i s hi s onl y 'lowe r depths ' play, i n whic h th e character s ar e tramps , beggars , criminal s an d th e dispossessed. Set in an inn at night, it partly concerns a gentleman who has 'gone t o seed ' afte r hi s wife' s desertio n o n thei r weddin g day . Written i n 1885, it was neither performed no r published in Chekhov's lifetime, and its main interes t lie s i n th e exten t t o whic h h e use s convention s without subverting the m - s o th e resul t i s a pla y whic h relie s o n a n unlikel y coincidence when the wife suddenly appears in the inn, and on melodrama 58 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov's one-act plays and the full-length play s in th e murde r attempt . Th e origina l stor y i s evocative , a n atmospheri c sketch of a rainy autum n evenin g with characters mor e likel y to b e found i n a play b y Gorky tha n Chekhov. 4 Lik e Platonov whic h precede d it , th e pla y is marred b y melodrama, exces s an d over-seriousness , bu t does relat e to th e peasants an d ordinar y peopl e describe d b y Astrov i n Uncle Vanya - an d t o the tram p whos e sudde n appearanc e significantl y alter s th e moo d an d th e action o f Act Two of The Cherry Orchard. Unlike On the High Road, th e othe r shor t pla y whic h sit s oddl y i n th e genre i s th e unfinishe d an d posthumousl y publishe d The Night before the Trial (1890s) . Th e pla y relie s o n a serie s o f misunderstanding s whic h aris e from th e ancien t comi c devic e o f mistake n identity , an d utilise s othe r traditional comi c device s lik e th e cuckolde d husband . I t to o wa s originall y a stor y o f th e sam e title , writte n i n 1886 , an d i s Chekhov' s mos t over t parody: stoc k situation , stereotypes , improbabl e plo t o r situatio n - an d likely denouement . I t is more closel y related t o commedia dell'arte, Plautu s and Moliere , tha n t o Chekhov' s othe r - late r - dramati c works . Bu t i t i s also wort h comparin g th e treatmen t o f th e cuckolde d husban d wit h th e very differen t treatmen t o f Andre y i n Three Sisters, whos e wif e Natash a i s unfaithful t o hi m - an d everyon e know s it , makin g hi m a tragi-comi c character. O r t o the characterisation o f 'Waffles ' - Telegi n - i n Uncle Vanya and, indeed , th e very differen t treatmen t o f Vanya's an d Astrov' s interes t i n Yeliena who , agains t al l convention , remain s faithfu l t o he r elderl y an d difficult husband , Serebriakov . Thi s i s no t t o suggest , however , tha t Chekhov doe s no t mak e us e o f farc e i n Uncle Vanya, bu t h e doe s s o through th e reversal o f the convention. 5 Chekhov doe s no t mak e a clea r distinctio n betwee n 'farce ' an d 'vaude ville', hence my own previou s linkag e o f the two a s 'farce-vaudevilles'. 6 Hi s description o f The Bear, in th e sam e letter t o Polonsky quote d earlier , read s in full : Just t o while awa y th e time , I wrote a trivial littl e vaudevill e i n th e Frenc h manner, calle d The Bear . . . Alas ! when the y find ou t o n New Time [th e newspaper fo r whic h Chekho v wrot e man y stories , owne d b y Chekhov' s publisher, Suvorin ] tha t I writ e vaudeville s the y wil l excommunicat e me . What a m I to do ? I plan somethin g worthwhile - an d - i t is all tra-la-la! In spite o f al l m y attempt s a t bein g serious , th e resul t i s nothing; with m e the serious always alternates with the trivial.7 This i s exactly Chekhov' s method : whethe r i n hi s stories , hi s full-lengt h plays or the short plays, he alternates 'th e serious ' with 'th e trivial'. It is one of th e mos t importan t characteristic s o f hi s styl e and intent : hi s concern , often expressed , wa s wit h th e banalitie s an d trivialitie s o f everyda y lif e -

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

VERA GOTTLIE B

and yet tim e passes , lif e slip s by , opportunitie s ar e lost , an d unhappines s and disappointmen t ar e poure d ou t ove r a glas s o f tea . The Proposal i s about everythin g excep t a proposal . Similarly , i n The Cherry Orchard, Varya an d Lopakhi n seemingl y los e th e opportunit y o f bein g togethe r because o f a los t pai r o f galoshe s - o r i n Three Sisters, Irin a lose s th e chance o f a littl e happines s o r companionshi p o r simpl y chang e whe n th e Baron i s kille d i n a ludicrou s historica l anachronism , a due l - whil e afte r the fata l sho t (hear d bu t unknow n bot h t o th e on-stag e character s an d th e audience) he r brother-in-la w disguise s hi s ow n dee p unhappines s a t hi s wife's infidelit y wit h Vershini n b y foolin g wit h a fals e bear d confiscate d from on e of the boy s he teaches a t the local school . Equally, Vanya in Uncle Vanya - accordin g to Chekhov's direction s - jus t whistles. When peopl e ar e really unhappy , Chekho v said , the y jus t whistle . Spac e doe s no t permi t more examples , bu t thi s contrapunta l devic e emanate s fro m characterisa tion an d th e cross-dialogu e i n whic h character s eithe r canno t hea r eac h other - o r d o no t listen . This , o f course , i s a n ol d comi c devic e (foun d i n Plautus o r commedia dell'arte): th e 'comed y o f th e deaf , bu t i n Chekhov' s works i t become s par t o f wha t h e calle d 'th e sa d comicalit y o f everyda y life', whic h i s subject , styl e an d motivation . Fo r Chekho v thi s i s more tha n a device - i t is a philosophy. Alexander Kupri n reporte d Chekho v a s saying: In life there are no clear-cut consequences or reasons; in it everything is mixed up together; th e important an d th e paltry , th e great an d th e base , the tragi c and th e ridiculous . On e i s hypnotise d an d enslave d b y routin e an d canno t manage to break away from it. What are needed are new forms, new ones.8 It i s thi s alternatio n o f th e trivia l wit h th e significant , emanatin g no t conventionally fro m situation , bu t fro m character , whic h demonstrate s Chekhov's philosophy , hi s subversio n o f conventiona l techniques , an d which provide s th e majo r clu e t o hi s structura l devices , i n whicheve r medium h e wa s writing . An d i t als o explain s som e Wester n Europea n o r American directors ' over-use d o r misunderstoo d respons e t o th e stag e direction: 'laughte r throug h tears' . I n essence , i t i s ver y simpl e an d no t some characteristicall y neuroti c Russia n feature : i t is wha t happen s i n everyday lif e an d conversatio n whe n peopl e interact , yet follo w thei r ow n train o f thought ; whe n 'th e sad ' i s interrupte d b y 'th e comic ' - an d tear s and laughte r com e eithe r on e afte r th e other , o r simultaneously . Thi s i s th e function o f th e contrapuntal : on e trai n o f though t followed , o r interrupte d apparently b y accident , b y anothe r character' s words . Or , particularl y i n the major plays , this structur e ma y involve a n off-stag e soun d whic h work s as a n effec t i n relatio n t o wha t precede s o r follow s it , becomin g a for m o f montage. 60 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov's one-act plays and the full-length plays There are many examples of 'laughter through tears' in the one-act plays as well. In The Wedding, for example , th e sill y young show-off , Yat , the telegraph clerk , boastin g abou t electri c light , create s a ro w ove r th e wedding dinne r whic h change s th e whol e moo d an d prompt s a furiou s response fro m th e bride' s mother , Mr s Zhigalov , wh o the n continue s 'tearfully'. An d in the same short 'play', 9 th e most respected an d expected guest, Genera l Revunov-Karaulov , virtuall y ruin s th e even t b y hi s litera l deafness - th e stoc k comi c device , yet turne d b y Chekhov int o somethin g else: an expose of the petty, the pretentious or hypocritical. Such stoc k device s wer e well-know n t o Chekhov . Althoug h writin g about th e requirement s o f th e shor t story , h e list s thes e i n a lette r t o hi s brother Alexander on 17 April 1883: 1. Th e shorter the better. 2. A bit of ideology and being a bit up to date is most a propos. 3. Caricatur e i s fine , bu t ignoranc e o f civi l servic e rank s an d o f th e seasons is strictly prohibited . . . But three years later, in another letter to Alexander o n 1 0 May 1886 , he is less facetious: 1. Absenc e of lengthy verbiage of political-social-economic nature . 2. Tota l objectivity. 3. Truthfu l description s of persons and objects. 4. Extrem e brevity. 5. Audacit y and originality: free the stereotype. 6. Compassion . There i s no contradictio n her e betwee n 'tota l objectivity ' - an d 'compas sion', an d thi s to o i s a major featur e o f Chekhov' s writin g technique : the 'total objectivity' is what, mistakenly, prompted many to claim Chekhov as a 'naturalist' , whil e th e 'compassion ' i s on e o f severa l feature s whic h differentiate Chekhov' s vaudevilles from th e conventional - French - genr e which h e mention s i n th e lette r quote d abov e i n relatio n t o The Bear. Equally, i n hi s 'fre e th e stereotype ' h e i s referrin g t o th e conventiona l French model s whic h flooded th e Russia n stag e o f th e eighteent h an d nineteenth centuries. In 188 0 Chekho v compile d a comprehensiv e lis t o f Things Most Frequently Encountered in Novels, Stories and Other Such Things, whic h included man y o f the conventions h e was later t o subvert i n both hi s oneact and full-length plays . The list included: the impoverished nobleman, stupid footmen, nannies, governesses, people 61 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

VERA GOTTLIE B

who are not beautiful, but pleasant and attractive, the height of the skies . . . in a word: nature!. . .the aunt in Tambov, the doctor with a worried face . . . and where there is a doctor . . . there is migraine, inflammation of the brain, care of the wounded in a duel . . . the servant who has been in service with the old masters, who is prepared to go through thick and thin for the master's family, even go through fire . . . a dog who does everything except talk . . . electricity - in the majority of cases, dragged in for no particular reason . . . the gun that does not fire . . . incidental eavesdropping as the cause of great discoveries . . . an endless number of interjections, and attempts to use an appropriate technical term, subtle hints to rather weighty circumstances, very often the absence of an ending, Seven Deadly Sins in the beginning and a wedding at the end! 10

To giv e jus t a fe w example s o f hi s us e o f thes e conventions , i n The Wedding th e argumen t abou t electricity , 'dragge d i n fo r n o particula r reason' b y Yat , woul d b e comi c wer e i t no t fo r th e fac t tha t Chekhov' s subversion of the convention changes the mood of the festivities s o that the result is serious. It ceases to be comic because it is taken as a 'put down' by Zhigalov and expose s th e pett y an d narro w mentalit y o f th e characters . Equally, 'th e attemp t t o us e . . . appropriat e technica l terms ' i s wha t inflames Mr s Zhigalo v abou t th e 'important ' guest , th e dea f Revunov Karaulov, who keeps using naval terms. In the full-length plays , 'the dog who does everything except talk' brings to mind the governess, Charlotta Ivanovna , in The Cherry Orchard, whos e dog 'actuall y eat s nuts ' - ye t thi s comi c lin e i s undercu t b y Charlotta' s unhappiness; or the 'servan t wh o has been in service with th e old masters' could b e Anfis a or Ferapon t i n Three Sisters, o r Fir s i n The Cherry Orchard; while 'the aunt in Tambov' becomes, in The Cherry Orchard, 'the aunt in Yaroslavl', mentioned several times as a possible source of financial salvation. As for th e wedding at the end, Chekhov eithe r doe s not provid e one - a s i n The Cherry Orchard wit h Lopakhi n an d Varya , an d th e unhappy triangle between Yasha (the 'stock' figure of the 'inflated' servant), Dunyasha an d poor Yepikhodov - o r offers a very unpromising on e in the case o f Natash a an d Lomo v i n The Proposal, or th e unexpecte d futur e marriage, a s in the endin g o f The Bear. I n both farces , th e women ar e fa r from conventiona l i n thei r proactiv e an d eve n manipulativ e role s - an d Chekhov sets up the future marrie d life of both couples so we are left i n no doubt about their romantic or sentimental 'wedded bliss'. In The Seagull, wit h th e passage o f tim e betwee n Act s Three an d Four , we se e th e effec t o f a 'love ' affai r i n th e unhapp y marriag e betwee n Medvedenko an d Masha. And there are the conventional lov e triangles on which The Seagull is structured, which also form a major par t of the action 62 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov's one-act plays and the full-length plays (as distinct fro m plot) . Similarly there i s the lov e triangle i n Uncle Vanya between Vany a an d Astro v an d th e marrie d Yelien a wh o - agains t al l convention - insist s o n fidelit y t o he r elderly , selfis h husband . O r ther e is The Bear, i n which the widowed Popova , wit h he r dimple d cheeks , insists on grieving for her husband, which creates a love triangle in which Smirnov has t o 'compete ' wit h a dea d husband . Subvertin g th e conventio n again , and t o differen t effect , ar e th e lov e triangle s i n Three Sisters with tw o characters w e neve r see : Vershinin' s wife , an d Natasha' s ver y 'evident ' lover, Protopopov. The result is either parody of what had becom e a stock plotting devic e - o r th e ver y credibl e an d realistic , becaus e painful , subversion of the device. The mos t innovator y us e o f th e stoc k situatio n i s Chekhov' s us e o f character from which the action emanates. Thus, instead of 'the stereotype' we are given three-dimensional character, and instead of 'plot' we are given action whic h come s onl y fro m characte r an d th e interactio n betwee n characters. Host s an d guest s i n The Wedding mak e i t a disma l affai r because o f thei r pettiness , whil e wit h bot h A Tragic Role an d On the Harmfulness of Tobacco, the monologue for m allow s th e objectiv e depic tion o f completel y subjectiv e an d self-centre d characters . I n th e first , th e 'reluctant tragedian ' Tolkacho v bring s i t al l o n himself , whils t i n th e second, th e monologu e for m i s used i n a highly comple x way , an d b y a n unhappy fellow called Nyukhin or 'Sniffler'! 11 The monologu e for m i n On the Harmfulness of Tobacco is give n a n unusual twis t in that th e audienc e ha s a dual role: both a s audience i n the lecture room , addressed , cajole d an d pleade d wit h b y th e 'lecturer ' Nyukhin, and , o f course, a s audience a t the play's performance. Th e roles shift wit h the change of focus, from close-u p or empathy with Nyukhin, to long-shot, o r objectivit y abou t thi s littl e man , alternatel y cowerin g o r strutting. An d i n a ver y rea l wa y th e audienc e 'plays ' a rol e a s Nyukhi n asks a question , addresse s peopl e directl y wit h 'You , Sir ' - o r 'Madame ' and the n answer s fo r them . A questio n t o th e audienc e i s no t simpl y rhetorical, bu t seems t o carr y th e plausibilit y o f a n actua l respons e o r reaction. In Swan Song, there is a particular us e of dramatic irony: we, the audience, hav e gon e home . Ye t w e ar e audienc e t o Svetlovidov' s perfor mance with Nikita. The almos t cinemati c us e o f close-u p followe d b y long-shot i s a majo r technique use d b y Chekhov t o alte r ou r perspectiv e o n character. This , in turn, relate s t o th e numerou s occasion s o n whic h a characte r i s simpl y talking t o himself o r hersel f - other s ma y b e present, ma y 'hear ' - bu t d o not 'listen' . Thi s ofte n create s th e mos t revealin g an d touchin g three dimensionality o f character , a s whe n Charlott a Ivanovn a virtuall y ha s a 63 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

VERA GOTTLIE B

'monologue' a t th e beginnin g o f Ac t Tw o o f The Cherry Orchard Dunyasha an d Yash a ar e presen t bu t concentratin g o n eac h other , a s Yepikhodov strum s hi s guita r an d watche s Dunyasha , s o i t i s onl y th e audience wh o liste n t o Charlott a a s sh e apparentl y talk s t o herself . A similar techniqu e i s use d i n Three Sisters, in Ac t Two , whe n Andre y unburdens himsel f exactly becaus e Ferapon t i s literall y to o dea f t o hea r him. And lest we become too sympatheti c t o Andrey, Ferapont interrupts , altering mood , wit h completel y irrelevan t an d nonsensica l - comi c remarks about the rope stretched around Moscow, and the pancakes. The subversio n o f th e devic e is used differentl y agai n whe n a characte r such as Gayev in The Cherry Orchard begins his declamatory speech to the book case, and is heard by the others on stage, and his heightened reactio n to event s i s deflate d whe n th e other s laugh . An d i n a differen t mode , Astrov's impassioned speec h in Act Three of Uncle Vanya about the forests and, in the broadest sense , about ecology, captures Yeliena' s interest in the man - bu t not his 'cause'. Unlike Sonya, who listens to Astrov's ideals and aspirations, an d whic h ar e a part o f hi s attractio n fo r her , Yelien a see s a man made attractive to her by passion, by style, not b y content. There is a similar passio n whic h motivate s Masha' s interes t i n Vershini n i n Three Sisters, and in Irina's response to Tuzenbach's philosophy. Perhaps th e clearest example of this is demonstrated b y the multifacete d reactions t o Konstantin' s pla y i n Ac t On e o f The Seagull: eac h characte r responds characteristically. Thu s Arkadina's inability t o take it seriously is a rejection o f Konstantin himself, and set s in motion the internal actio n of the relationship betwee n mothe r an d son , an d th e seemin g inevitability of the endin g o f th e play . D r Dorn , however , doe s tak e th e pla y withi n th e play seriously, and provides not only a calming influence o n the characters, but act s a s a kin d o f condui t o f objectivit y fo r u s a s audience . Doctor s appear o n Chekhov' s lis t o f Things Most Frequently Encountered - an d most of the major play s do have a doctor amongst the characters. It is only in the final act of the play, with Nina' s secretiv e and disturbe d return , that the true meaning o f the 'desert ' an d 'wasteland ' becom e apparent t o Nin a herself, to Konstantin - an d to the audience. And there is the symbolism of the ripped curtain, flapping in the wind, still there in spite of the - two-yea r - passag e of time. This, in turn, relate s to severa l features whic h ar e carried ove r from th e one-act plays into the major ones : the absence o f endings a s such, and the shift o f mood an d atmospher e withi n second s o f stag e o r real time, which lift th e play s ont o anothe r plane . A s Nemirovich-Danchenk o pu t it : 'Chekhov refined his realism to the point where it became symbolic.' 12 This is true of the time of day or night as, for example , in Swan Song when late 64 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov's one-act plays and the full-length plays at nigh t Svetlovido v probabl y give s Nikit a (an d us ) a bette r performanc e than anythin g either durin g or since his youth. Equally, the weather seem s to work 'naturalistically ' o n the characters - to o ho t i n Act On e o f Uncle Vanya; a heat-wave plaguing Tolkachov in A Tragic Role; stormy in Uncle Vanya and the last act of The Seagull; bu t simultaneously it has a meaning and effec t greate r tha n itself , an d henc e become s 'symbolic' . I n The Bear Popova's insistenc e o n burying herself indoor s fo r a year begin s to change when Luka , he r ol d manservant , firs t tell s he r wha t a beautifu l da y i t i s outside - an d then usher s i n 'th e bear' - a large mammal, ver y much alive, breaking he r seclusio n fro m th e outsid e world . Contrastin g vividl y wit h Popova's 'dee p mourning ' dres s i s th e life-givin g descriptio n o f activitie s beyond the room in which she has shut herself away. The absence o f 'endings ' is evident i n the vaudevilles. At the end of The Proposal it becomes clear that th e rows will continue even after marriage ; at the end of The Bear, the change of both mood and mind by Popova is not going to result in tranquility; in Swan Song, Svetlovidov is led off b y the old prompter, Nikita, to wake the next day no doubt with a hangover, and with his life unchanged b y the flow of memory and even the resurgence of ideals which briefl y illuminate d hi s lif e th e nigh t before , an d heightene d th e reality o f his situation. And Nikita wil l continue to live in fear o f the stage manager discoverin g tha t h e sleep s eac h nigh t i n th e theatre , havin g nowhere els e t o go . I n On the Harmfulness of Tobacco, Nyukhin' s miserable existenc e wil l continu e a s befor e sinc e h e lack s th e courag e t o take contro l - an d chang e it. H e ma y tear of f th e 'image ' o f hi s life - hi s worn, shabby, ill-fitting tail-coat - bu t he will simply continue with what he knows only too well: 'this rotten, banal , tawdry life - thi s existence which has made me into a pathetic ol d fool - th e life o f an idiot'. At the end, his wife 'appears ' in the wings. And he puts his coat back on, begging 'us ' not to tell on him. It is only with Chekhov's last play, The Cherry Orchard, that there is a partial upbeat in the closure of the play: Anya and Trofimov leave the stag e wit h th e words : 'Good-bye , ol d life ' - an d - 'Hullo , ne w life!' . This is not to suggest any easy romanticism or sentimentality in their futur e life together, bu t a contrast with th e bleak prospects tha t confront mos t of the other characters. 13 In A Tragic Role, Tolkacho v (whos e nam e relate s t o 'pushed') , wil l continue t o b e 'pushed' b y fulfilling everyone' s demands , allowin g himself to b e treate d lik e a cart-horse , whil e hi s frien d Murashki n ('Shivers' ) who ha s listened , o r rather , not listene d t o thi s 'false ' monologu e (fals e because th e presenc e o f Murashki n theoreticall y justifie s Tolkachov' s tirade) - simpl y add s t o hi s friend' s burden s wit h hi s ow n requests . Th e comedy o f Tolkachov' s entranc e (reminiscen t o f Lucky' s i n Beckett' s 65 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

VERA GOTTLIE B

Waiting for Godot) i s a rar e exampl e i n Chekhov' s work s o f comi c physicality. O f al l th e one-ac t plays , onl y The Bear, The Proposal, A Tragic Role an d Jubilee contain th e physicalit y o f actio n associate d wit h farce - whethe r th e bes t Frenc h example s o f Labich e an d Feydeau , o r of the English variety like Pinero's The Magistrate or , more recently, some of the play s o f Ala n Ayckbour n o r Michae l Frayn. 14 Jubilee contain s th e physicality o f farc e i n th e creatio n o f chaos ; in th e misunderstandings ; i n the exaggerate d reaction s o f th e character s (Meyerhold' s 'Swoons'); 15 i n the 'demolition ' o f th e respectabl e facad e o f a bank , an d i n th e craz y 'tableau' ending. Similarly, in the majo r plays , Vanya's murde r attemp t i s both farcica l and tragic , bu t elsewher e onl y Yepikhodo v i n The Cherry Orchard, with his nicknam e o f '2 2 misfortunes ' (sometime s translate d int o Englis h a s 'Simple Simon') , suffer s a n endles s serie s o f farcica l - physica l - misfor tunes, whether crushing a hat box, or tripping over objects. The difference , however, between Yepikhodov (o r indeed Nyukhin in On the Harmfulness of Tobacco) an d the conventional stereotype , is that each knows 'hi s fate' . Life is a series of conspiracies designed to torment, so that if something can go wrong, it will. That self-knowledge invest s the character with the threedimensionality o f psychology , som e dignit y - and a wa y o f life . An d perhaps Medvedenko, the unfortunate schoolmaste r who marries Masha in The Seagull, shares som e o f th e misfortune s - an d self-knowledge . A similar case may be made about Charlott a Ivanovna' s tricks in The Cherry Orchard, o r Pishchik's action in swallowing Ranevskaya's pills. Bu t one of the most farcica l moment s i n the pla y takes place off-stage: i n Act Three, Trofimov's pompou s reactio n t o Ranevskaya' s teasin g i s t o marc h off , offended - onl y to fall down the stairs. In a conventional farce, the audience would see that happen, but in a Chekhov play, the character migh t well be hurt. I n th e sam e act , Chekho v i s careful t o kee p th e balanc e o f th e 'sa d comicality', s o the fact tha t Varya hits Lopakhin over the head by mistake, an action taking place on stage, prepares us for th e mistiming between the couple an d deflate s Lopakhin' s entranc e a s the 'ne w owner ' o f th e estate. And hi s hea d does hurt! Vary a ask s him : ' I didn' t hur t you , di d I? ' - t o which Lopakhin replies: 'No, it's all right. I'm going to have a wacking big bruise, though'. By contrast, th e physicality in The Bear and The Proposal is to very different effect : there is no pain involved. The bes t example s o f Labiche o r Feydea u (o r Ayckbourn o r Frayn ) rel y absolutely o n th e split-secon d timin g o f entrance s an d exit s a s th e 'triangles' o f husband , wif e an d eithe r love r o r mistres s see k t o avoi d actual confrontation . Chekhov' s us e o f th e lov e triangle , whethe r i n The Bear or The Seagull, is no t base d o n suc h plottin g devices , bu t o n th e 66 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov's one-act plays and the full-length plays psychology whic h create s th e action : onl y i n Uncle Vanya i s ther e a moment whic h attune s wit h Frenc h farce , whe n Vany a enter s wit h a bunch o f flowers fo r Yelien a a t th e precis e momen t whe n Astro v an d Yeliena make physical contact - a situation repeate d i n Act Four. The pain that thi s create s fo r al l thre e remove s i t fro m th e seemingl y painles s adulteries o f French farce. I t is partly the accidental coincidence o f timin g (as distinc t fro m th e conventionall y contrived ) whic h make s i t mor e painful an d awkward . Th e othe r momen t o f farc e - define d als o b y it s physicality - i s whe n Vany a trie s t o shoo t Serebriakov , a n actio n whic h completely subvert s th e convention . First , Vany a misse s - no t once , bu t twice, and in a confined space ; second, Vanya actuall y says : 'Bang!' which is a comic , i f no t 'stagey ' line , ofte n misse d i n th e action ; third , Yelien a tries t o protec t th e Professo r - a s oppose d t o th e conventio n whic h dictates tha t th e ma n protect s th e woman; 16 then , th e respectable , pompous an d self-centre d Professo r i s absolutely terrified; an d last but not least, Vany a i s drive n b y utte r desperatio n cause d b y Serebriakov' s insensitivity whic h negate s everythin g tha t Vany a an d Sony a ha d worke d for, s o it ha s much les s to d o with th e love triangle tha n thei r whol e way of life. Finally, Vanya' s pai n i s suc h tha t afte r failin g twic e i n a murde r attempt,17 h e i s the n drive n t o suicid e - a suicid e onl y jus t avoide d b y Astrov an d Sony a i n persuadin g Vany a t o retur n th e bottl e h e has stole n from Astrov' s medica l bag . Thi s i s a us e o f farc e whic h becomes , i n Chekhov's plays , a philosophical idea, an d no t merel y a farcica l action . Conventional farc e o f th e Frenc h o r Britis h variet y demonstrate s a world out o f th e contro l o f th e characters ; i n Chekhov' s farce , th e character s could take control, but for often complex reasons, do not. 18 It was not, however, the superbly crafted farce s of Labiche or Feydeau on which Chekhov based his 'farce-vaudevilles', bu t the endless formulaic an d often third-rat e Frenc h import s whic h flooded th e popula r stage s o f Europe. An d i n which , n o doubt , Svetlovido v i n Swan Song regularl y played - a s woul d Nina , actin g i n provincia l theatres , travellin g secon d class from jo b to job, as she describes it in Act Four o f The Seagull. Thu s the chance s ar e tha t whe n th e audienc e o r reade r conside r a Chekho v character 'melodramatic ' o r 'farcical' , the n tha t i s exactl y th e reactio n Chekhov intends : he uses melodrama t o expose the melodramatic, an d he uses farce t o expose the farcical, a s Beckett wa s subsequentl y t o d o in the twentieth century: as a - significantl y differen t - philosoph y o f life. To put it anothe r way : the spectato r o r reader shoul d trus t thei r ow n instinct an d not inhibi t suc h reaction s wit h th e though t tha t thes e ar e mean t t o b e deeply seriou s 'Russian ' (ie . 'heavy' ) plays . Th e danger , however , lie s i n 67 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

VERA GOTTLIE B

playing the m slowly, whether th e one-ac t o r full-lengt h play s - a n aspec t about which Chekhov constantly complained. 19 NOTES 1 Unles s otherwise indicated, quotations from th e letters are from N . F. Belchikov and others , eds. , Anton Chekhov, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem v $oi tomakh, Moscow , 1974-8 3 (Anton Chekhov, Collected Works and Letters in 30 volumes, Moscow, 1974-83). 2 Quote d in David Magarshack, Chekhov the Dramatist, New York, i960, p. 54. 3 Lette r to A. S. Suvorin, 2 January 1894. 4 Fo r a mor e detaile d discussio n o f th e play , se e Ver a Gottlieb , Chekhov and the Vaudeville, A Study of Chekhov's One-Act Flays, Cambridge , 1982 , pp. 110-19 .

5 The Seagull and The Cherry Orchard are bot h calle d comedies , whil e Three Sisters i s subtitle d A Drama in Four Acts. No t on e o f hi s plays, shor t o r full length, is called a 'tragedy', s o even with Konstantin's suicid e at the end of The Seagull, it remains a comedy, as does The Cherry Orchard. 6 Gottlieb , Chekhov and the Vaudeville, The shor t play s ar e analyse d unde r genre: farce-vaudevilles, dramati c studies, a play in one act and a monologue in one act. 7 Lette r to Yakov Polonsky, 22 February 1888. 8 Quote d in Sophie Laffitte, Chekhov 1860-1904, London , 1974, p. 16. 9 'Play ' is used here as distinct from farces, such as The Bear and The Proposal, or a 'comedy ' such a s The Cherry Orchard, o r a 'drama' such a s Three Sisters o r Swan Song. 10 A . P . Chekhov , Things Most Frequently Encountered in Novels, Stories and Other Such Things (1880-2), in vol. I of Collected Works and Letters, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem, vol. I, pp. 17-18 . For the complete list in English, see Gottlieb, Chekhov and the Vaudeville, p. 17. 11 Ever y now an d agai n Chekhov use s the stoc k devic e of 'meaningfu l names' : in The Cherry Orchard the 'hanger-on ' Pishchi k i s translatable a s 'Squeaker' ; i n Swan Song Svetlovidov's nam e i s associated wit h 'svet ' o r 'light ' whil e i n The Wedding Zhigalov relates to 'burning'; Revunov-Karaulov relate s to 'howl-for help'; the midwife, Mrs Zmeyukin, is 'snake'; and Mozgovoy is associated with 'brain'. 12 Quote d in Edward Braun, The Director and the Stage, London, 1982, p. 73. 13 Se e chapter 1 0 in this volume. 14 Se e discussion of Michael Frayn's use of farce in chapter 18. 15 Fo r a n analysi s o f Meyerhold' s productio n 33 Swoons se e chapte r 14 . Als o Edward Braun' s Meyerhold, a Revolution in Theatre, London, 1995 . And see Gottlieb, Chekhov and the Vaudeville. Part s o f th e las t mentione d boo k hav e been reprinte d i n Drama Criticism, Criticism of the Most Significant and Widely Studied Dramatic Works from All the World's Literature, vol. IX , A Special Volume Devoted to Anton Pavlovich Chekhov 1860-11)04, One-Act Plays, Detroit and London, 1999, pp. 162-94 . 16 Th e conclusio n o f Platonov has a simila r role-reversa l wit h Sony a firin g a t 68 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov's one-act plays and the full-length play s Platonov, Mariya tryin g to protect him , but Sony a doe s not miss and Platono v dies on stage (Act Four, Scenes xn and xin). See chapter 4 in this volume. 17 Se e chapter 8 in this volume. 18 Se e chapter 1 8 in this volume. 19 'Thi s really is dreadful! A n act [The Cherry Orchard, Ac t Four] which ought to take a maximum o f twelve minutes - you'r e draggin g it ou t for fort y minutes ! All I can sa y is that Stanislavsk y i s ruining m y play. ' Lette r t o Olg a Knipper Chekhova, 29 March 1904.

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

PATRICE PAVI S

Ivanov: the invention o f a negative dramaturgy

Ivanov (1887) occupies an unusual place in Chekhov's theatre because it is rarely staged. The four main plays, which are generally more enjoyable, are frequently performe d - a s indeed i s Platonov (1882), in spit e o f bein g a n early work, but in which every flaw may be excused as a sign of chaotic but promising genius. If, i n fact, Ivanov is read as a play either from Chekhov' s successful maturit y or his impetuous youth, one will inevitably be surprised and eve n disappointed : th e pla y i s rathe r heav y an d complicated ; th e characters are verbose and excessive, and the main springs of the action are both evident an d predictable. But if one considers the play as an open-cast quarry from whic h all his dramatic works will be extracted, or as a school for experimenta l dramaturgy , on e i s amaze d b y th e richnes s o f thi s discovery: al l the ingredient s ar e offere d u p wit h complet e openness , a s if the writing process - erasin g and burying more than creating - ha d not yet taken place. Ivanov should not b e underestimated. It would even be better to cwerinterpre t i t an d imagin e everythin g tha t ha s t o b e eliminate d o r covered u p i n orde r t o find th e tone , th e concisio n an d th e econom y o f speech in the four major plays. The yea r 188 7 mark s a precise turnin g poin t i n Europea n dramaturgy : Antoine founde d th e Theatre-Libre , th e birthplac e o f naturalis m i n th e theatre, and Lugne-Poe opened his Cercle des Escholiers, which in turn led to the symbolis t Theatr e d e l'Oeuvre. Chekho v himsel f seeme d t o hesitat e between naturalisti c writin g an d symbolis t vision , betwee n realisti c effect s - an d theatrica l conventions . I t migh t no t hav e bee n apparen t the n tha t they ar e tw o side s o f th e sam e coi n an d tha t Ivanov i s th e 'negative ' dramaturgy at the source of this revelation. The inventio n o f a new dramaturg y

To look first at a negative dramaturgy. Ivanov shows the transition fro m a classical (o r neo-classical ) dramaturg y t o a ne w one , characterise d b y 70 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Ivanov: the invention of a negative dramaturgy

ellipsis, allusio n an d subtext . However , thi s proces s o f erasing , o f under mining and of 'burying' writing devices, is not an easy or painless one. The old dramaturg y o f the well-mad e play , the hei r o f classica l theatre , i s still solid and visible : the story can be read easily, the numerous characters ar e psychologically an d sociall y characterise d an d th e conflict s ar e wel l defined. Th e dramati c action , whic h i s stil l ver y externalise d an d taut , climaxes at the end of every act, with a crescendo within each act and fro m one ac t t o th e next, righ t u p t o th e final conventional suicide . All action s and word s ar e subordinat e t o th e dramati c structure ; the y canno t detac h themselves fro m i t t o becom e autonomous ; the y ar e constraine d b y th e main dramaturgical pillars. All are centred around the main character, who talks a lot , givin g awa y al l kind s o f detail s abou t hi s intention s an d motivation. Al l character s expres s themselve s mor e tha n i s necessary , dotting th e i's an d crossin g th e t's , a s if the y wer e th e mouthpieces o f th e author. Have we then become prisoners o f a problem dramaturgy? Ivanov looks very much like a 'problem play' : the autho r use s the rather trivia l stor y of an anti-her o i n orde r t o giv e a diagnosi s o f hi s time . H e confront s a prematurely worn-ou t Russia n society , a n environmen t an d a characte r who cannot resist weariness and degradation. The point seems obvious: the main character does not find the strength to fight back and causes his wife's death bot h b y negligenc e an d i n th e hop e o f a ne w life . Docto r Lvov , unable to cure Ivanov's wife, Anna, tries to protect he r from he r husband . He publicly accuses him of having premeditatedly killed his spouse in order to escape bankruptcy. If Ivanov' s motivatio n i s supposedl y clea r - a t leas t fro m th e poin t o f view of Lvov, his accuser - Lvov' s own motivation is less obvious. And this is the mai n ambiguit y o f th e play . The dialogu e i s indeed explicit , fo r n o character fail s t o tel l u s wha t the y thin k o f Ivanov . Chekho v ha s no t ye t 'demotivated' his characters: he lets them pour out everything and nothing. He gives them hardly an y unspoken, implicit, o r indeterminate statements , whether i n thei r word s or in thei r situations . Th e reader' s o r spectator' s reception i s strictl y guide d an d the y reac h conclusion s wit h complet e awareness. Modern dramaturg y thu s seem s t o hesitat e o n th e brin k o f a complete void; it still clings to a thesis, a problem an d an explanation, a key, even if these hav e becom e problemati c i n Szondi' s sense, 1 since the y see m ou t o f touch wit h th e ne w world-view . I t depend s o n well-trie d effects , o n wellknown conclusions , o n credibl e explanations . I t ha s no t ye t foun d a n adequate form , particularl y i n relatio n t o th e dilutio n o f conten t o r statement within the whole textual network, o r in relation to a polyphonic

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

PATRICE PAVI S

form instead of a univocal content. It still shows moments of concentrated, isolated meaning , wher e th e individua l wor d i s weighe d dow n b y heav y explanations. The variou s coups de theatre in Ivanov, situated accordin g t o th e neoclassical dramaturgica l principl e o f effect s a t th e end o f each act , concen trate and resolve the tensions of every act and every situation in the manner of a cod a fo r a musica l piec e i n fou r movements . Onl y later , wit h The Seagull, will thes e ho t spot s disappea r o r b e extende d int o th e whol e textual network , withi n a n exchang e o f dialogue , o r eve n withi n tw o successive lines . Th e action s ar e tightl y linked ; the y ar e se t u p an d performed withou t hesitation , accordin g t o th e principl e o f maximu m tension for each coup de theatre which punctuates the end of each act. One dialogue lead s t o th e next , instea d o f vanishin g int o th e thi n ai r o f non attentiveness. Whenever a character enters or exits, there is - i n accordance with th e rule s o f classica l dramaturg y - a related chang e i n th e situation : any new incident increase s th e tension, particularl y wit h th e conventiona l triangle o f Ivanov/Anna/Lvo v a s Lvov' s persecution s becom e mor e an d more insistent. Ivanov is increasingly caught in a trap, until he has no other choice bu t t o destro y himself . Th e actio n remain s essentiall y dramatic , according to what Bakhtin referred t o as the dialectic o f action/reaction o r speech/action, visible in the characters' behaviour rather than in the textual network of discursive, rhythmical and dialogical counterpoints. 2 The dramaturg y i s indeed mor e positive than negative ; it is very visible, linked t o classical structures , an d too solidl y buil t t o let the dialogues and discourses resonat e togethe r an d provok e multipl e an d unexpecte d ech o effects. I t remain s emotionall y heightene d an d exaggerate d (paroxysmic) , albeit parodic, dramaturgy with an immoderate taste for obligator y scenes, teasing situations and calculated and predictable effects . Later - whethe r in Chekhov's work to come or in rereading the play with the retrospectiv e perspectiv e propose d her e i n th e ligh t o f Chekhov' s classical wor k an d his subsequent dramati c writin g - thi s dramaturg y will become negative; it wil l becom e destructured , dematerialised , disorien tated, an d wil l let the textual network s graduall y emerge . But in this neoclassical building , crack s ar e alread y visible , o r rathe r audible . A for m based on conflict, opposition , dualism and the contrasting qualities of good and evil is no longer adequate. It relies too much on the contradictions o f a priori ideas (suc h as honest/dishonest; pure/criminal; normal/pathological) . Even in 1887 , an d obviousl y mor e s o today, on e can n o longe r stic k t o a binary dramaturgy in a decentralised world, where oppositions cancel each other ou t an d languag e game s an d polyphon y disappea r i n a networ k o f echoes. Thus th e ver y summi t o f naturalis m - th e illusio n tha t th e worl d 72 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Ivanov: the invention of a negative dramaturgy can b e mimeticall y represente d - lead s exactl y t o it s antithesis , t o th e questioning o f a closed neo-classical dramaturg y an d t o the use of textua l and discursive mechanisms. Thus dramaturgy and its rigid rules give way to internally motivated effects o f language and textual mechanisms. Within this strict framework w e now find a wandering word, an unstable subject, a loose chai n o f ready-mad e motive s an d preconstructe d themes , which wil l b e take n u p i n th e late r plays . Words , subjects , an d motive s detach themselves slowly from th e dramaturgical framework an d its points of orientation , becomin g fre e association s dependen t o n textua l devices , which still have to be invented, or at least systematised. Textual an d discursiv e device s

The dramatic text can be analysed not only according to its macro-structure (its dramaturgy), but als o to the textual device s which are much more tiny and subtle : languag e games , pragmati c us e o f language , stylisti c effects . Given th e visibilit y o f th e dramati c structure , on e tend s t o se e al l textua l and discursiv e device s a s subordinat e elements . Textua l mechanisms / devices ar e unde r dramaturgica l control ; the y ar e th e emanation s o f th e action an d characters . Thi s i s wh y th e dialogue s ofte n explain , i n grea t detail, th e characters ' motivations . Thei r explanation s neve r see m to end , even if onl y to repeat tha t the y cannot fin d an y explanation fo r thei r ow n behaviour. Eac h character ha s a very chatty and verbose way of speaking; a fe w languag e tic s o r mannerism s ar e enoug h fo r thei r characterisation . Everyone ha s hi s o r he r ow n themati c an d linguisti c obsessions : Ivano v performs hi s ow n existentia l auto-analysis ; Lvo v hold s fort h o n th e question o f honesty ; Shabyelsk y make s cynica l an d tasteles s jokes , o r Kosykh talk s onl y abou t cards. 3 Al l o f the m ten d t o overexplain thei r actions instea d o f performin g the m silently . Thei r word s contai n littl e subtext, very few silences , few points o f suspension o r unspoken elements , but instead a lot of overtext, loquacious and endless explanations. This overtextua l mod e of speec h uses fairly classica l forms o f discourse: conversations betwee n tw o o r thre e people ; genre scene s where ther e i s a group discussion , fo r instanc e i n th e drawing-roo m (Ac t Two) ; direc t exchanges betwee n tw o character s (Ac t Two , Scen e XII I o r Ac t Three , Scene ix , o r Act Four, Scen e VIII) ; long monologues (Ac t Three, Scen e vi, Act Four, Scene i), and rapi d an d fas t cut s (stichomythia , a s in Act Three, Scene iv). These somewhat traditional dramaturgica l forms , however, were already undermine d an d invade d b y textual an d discursiv e device s whic h only a few years later were to become the trademark of Chekhov's dramatic writing. These device s ma y no t ye t have reache d thei r complet e maturity , 73 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

PATRICE PAVI S

or ha d no t alway s bee n activated , bu t the y wer e alread y controllin g th e textual network . Briefly mentione d belo w is a selection o f them, an d these devices ma y onl y b e understoo d withi n th e dialectic s o f a negativ e dramaturgy. (1) The indirectness of lines - th e fact tha t the characters' lines do not go in one and the same direction, but are open to many possible paths - i s not yet systematise d i n Ivanov: dialogue s stee r themselve s toward s a final resolution; connections are made without any ambiguity; the arguments are linear an d unquestionable ; th e dramaturgica l weavin g follow s a clea r strategy. Th e smalles t detai l acquire s a functio n withi n th e story : fo r instance, it is not a n insignificant detai l that Lvov, who is blatantly agains t Ivanov, tells Anna that his 'father's dead , bu t [his ] mother's stil l alive' (Act One, Scene vn). (2) TLffects of announcement prepare th e reader fo r forthcomin g action s in suc h a direc t wa y tha t on e wonder s wha t els e i s left fo r th e reade r o r spectator t o stil l imagine . 'I f h e spent a n evenin g a t home he' d ge t bored , he'd blo w his brain s out ' (Ac t One , Scen e v), Lvov warns us , an d Ivano v confesses t o u s that ' I jus t don' t understand . I might a s well shoo t mysel f and be done with it' (Act Three, Scene vi). (3) Effects which play to the gallery, beyon d the personal opinio n o f the character, which impose on reader or spectator a given interpretation o f the action, preventing them from judgin g for themselves. Thus: 'Once married, he won't pa y what h e owes her, and yo u can't ver y well take you r son-in law to court' (Ac t Four, Scene 11), Kosykh tells the gallery. Here again, such an explanatio n mus t no t b e taken fo r granted , sinc e it i s also a signal fo r the spectator to remain critical, a decoy to conceal or forestall an y untimely conclusions. (4) Explanatory chit-chat which makes the characters' words so obvious that it seems, when judged by the standards of Chekhov's later plays, to be such a major dramaturgica l flaw that i t lead s t o th e infantilisatio n o f th e reader/spectator. I t is enough to refer bac k to the characters' obsessiv e tics in orde r t o transfor m i t int o a deceptiv e an d ambiguou s device , precisel y because it is so explicit. (5) Talking through their hats, a s most character s do , i s als o a way of discouraging reade r o r spectato r fro m interpretin g th e characters ' word s literally. I t i s als o a paradoxica l wa y o f allowin g moment s o f absolut e sincerity whe n a rea l emotio n o r authenti c sentenc e suddenl y break s th e stereotypic straitjacke t - a s when , fo r instance , Shabyelsk y make s thi s unexpected an d touchin g confession : ' I can' t conced e tha t a living perso n may suddenly drop dead for no reason' (Act Three, Scene 11). (6) Swarming speech, an uncontrolle d outpouring , a n infantil e diseas e 74 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Ivanov: the invention of a negative dramaturgy

from whic h al l th e character s i n Ivanov suffe r whe n the y loo k fo r a n answer t o thei r crise s i n publi c confessions . Ironically , thes e crise s ste m precisely fro m thei r immoderat e lov e o f word s an d thei r refusa l o f any concrete action. (7) N o collective discourse/dialogue really counterbalance s Ivanov' s monologues. A remnan t o f th e ol d dramaturg y produce s conflic t an d debate betwee n Ivano v an d the others , betwee n supporter s an d enemies. Only with The Seagull is the central figure 'extended' to all the characters, their discours e generalise d an d scattere d withi n th e dialogu e o f al l th e characters. (8) Changes of subject frequently interrup t th e flow of monologues, thus contradicting a conversatio n tha t wa s supposedl y serious . Ivano v ofte n skips from on e subject t o another, relativising his will to get to the bottom of things : ' I daresa y I' m ver y muc h t o blame . (Listens) I thin k they'v e brought th e carriag e round ' (Ac t One , Scen e v) . O r 'whe n yo u star t rescuing me and giving me good advice , a look o f sheer innocenc e come s over you . . . Just a second, there's dust on your shoulder. (Brushes the dust off her shoulder)' (Act Three, Scene vn). (9) Prerecorded, preconstructed discourse takes ove r i n suc h instances , and set s the exchanges betwee n character s o n automatic pilot : there is no novelty, n o authenticit y i n thi s exchang e o f quotes , phrase s o r obsessiv e remarks. Al l th e songs , imitation s o f Yiddis h pronunciation , technica l terms from car d games, aphorisms o n Russian life, women or doctors, are only quotations an d situations that ar e to be systematically recycle d in the subsequent plays. (10) Thematic lines connec t differen t word s whic h ar e take n u p a t regular interval s withi n a networ k o f terms , whos e emergenc e become s meaningful a s a kind o f through-line, a n ideologem, ie. a simultaneousl y thematic, narrative , discursiv e an d ideological unit , whic h is also a key to the socia l relationships. For instance, the term honest(y), which i s applied positively and negatively to Lvov and Ivanov. This term becomes an empty element which demonstrates, somewha t ironically , the difficulty o f judging the actions of human beings. It thus relativises any judgement and forces us to compare every context where the term is used. (11) Auto-textuality (i.e . th e reflectio n o f th e tex t upo n itself , fo r instance, i n th e mise en abime 4) i s no t ye t a discursiv e devic e whic h i s extended to the whole play; it remains limited to a character's commentar y on itself . Thu s Ivano v see s himsel f a s a provincia l an d a ridiculou s 'Hamlet'-figure (Ac t Three , Scen e vn) , bu t th e questio n o f 'Hamletism ' does not find any extension in the overall structur e of the play. Later, as in The Seagull for example, auto-textuality is dissolved and generalised to the 75 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

PATRICE PAVI S

whole texture, thus becoming one of the main keys to Chekhov's work, and obviously dependen t o n the ol d dramaturgy , whic h stil l impose s a certain reading o f th e conflict s an d a n evaluatio n o f th e characters . Chekho v certainly does not propose any solution - h e rather suggest s that the reader or spectator shoul d decide, to the best of his/her knowledge and belief, and according t o his/he r ow n values , whethe r Ivano v i s guilt y o r innocent . However, receptio n i s greatl y influence d b y th e ide a tha t Lvo v i s mor e fanatical tha n honest , an d that Ivano v is more a victim than guilty . Hence reception is in fact as open as it was to become in all the later plays. All thes e textua l mechanism s a t wor k i n th e play , albei t i n a limite d fashion, d o no t ye t prov e tha t changin g a fe w dramaturgica l rule s ha s already produced a new textuality. The mechanisms o r devices still tend to cast themselve s i n constrictin g dramaturgica l forms , no t ye t changin g th e nature o f Chekhovia n playwriting . Dramaturgica l an d textua l innovatio n therefore remains very limited, even if one can anticipate all the possibilities of thi s negativ e an d destructurin g writing , whic h wil l unti e no t onl y dramaturgy and textuality, but also character and subject . Ivanov's characters are somehow on the defensive. On the one hand they are draw n meticulousl y wit h al l thei r contradiction s o f character , an d o n the othe r han d the y alread y ten d t o eras e themselves , fo r th e benefi t o f a tapestry of discourse and language games. Characters o n th e defensiv e

These character s exist , eve n befor e the y ope n thei r mouths , sinc e a naturalistic acting style gives them very precise characterisation. The tics in their behaviour , thei r way s o f talking , th e allusion s t o thei r time , ar e like Barthes' 'realit y effects' 5 whic h give us the illusion tha t w e are confronte d by real people. And yet this doe s not mak e them understandabl e t o us. In spite o f al l thei r auto-analyses , the y - o r a t leas t th e mai n character s remain contradictory and unfathomable . The fac t i s tha t th e subjec t i s i n crisis : th e ver y crisi s o f th e year s 1887-1900 which coincided with the discovery of psychoanalysis and mise en scene, two 'disciplines ' i n searc h o f a n unidentifie d objec t whic h ha s always, without knowing it, existed. In this evolving subject, the opposition between good and evil, guilt and innocence, vital desire and death-drive, no longer holds. Chekhov invites us to find the key to his main character: like a Woyzeck of the Russian intelligentsia, Ivanov is 'as everyman, an abyss, which makes you dizzy when you lean over it', who is also beyond judgement for 'W e all have to o man y wheels , screws , an d valve s t o judg e eac h othe r o n first 76 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Ivanov: the invention of a negative dramaturgy

impression o r o n on e o r tw o pointers ' (Biichner' s Woyzeck, Ac t Three , Scene vi).6 The self is made out of incomprehensible wheels. It is split, each half correspondin g sometime s t o differen t characters : fo r instance , th e 'infernal couple ' Ivanov-Lvov, where the latter i s only the prefiguration o f the former , te n year s before . Th e dramati c whee l o f th e pla y i s Lvov' s hatred fo r Ivanov , i n who m h e see s a hate d father-figure , a n obstacl e t o Anna's recovery as well as to his own Oedipal desire for her. A divided self is even a scattered self, whose explosion we witness when Ivanov blows his brains out. This crisi s o f th e subjec t i s a t th e sam e tim e th e caus e an d th e consequence o f a dee p crisi s o f language . Thi s ca n b e discovere d i n th e terrible fina l confrontatio n betwee n Ivano v an d Anna . Ann a accuse s he r husband not so much of betraying her with another woman but of lying to her fro m th e beginning . Sh e cast s doub t o n hi s word , an d therefore , according to him, on his very existence; he only defends himsel f agains t the accusation o f lying. Unable t o silenc e her, he tells her that th e docto r tol d him sh e woul d soo n die . Th e wor d ha s becom e a desperat e an d fata l weapon: i f th e othe r n o longe r believe s me , I hav e t o kil l hi m o r her . Ivanov's anxiet y grows not s o much from no t knowing an y longer who he is and what he wants (Ac t Four, Scene x), but having no more words in the other's and in his own eyes, or only a word that kills. The subjec t i s whole an d undivided; i t is ready to di e or to kill, only to prove it s ow n existence . Whethe r fo r th e character , th e writin g o r th e dramaturgy, the subject is made out of one piece, one solid block. One can still mak e distinction s betwee n dramaturgy , textualit y an d character s a s strong autonomou s systems . Th e characters , an d particularl y th e titl e character Ivanov , is the cement whic h stil l unites these system s an d masks the cracks in the building. One can still look at his fate, his motivations and his psychology , whic h preven t us , inversely , fro m perceivin g th e play' s textuality, it s languag e games , an d it s dramaturgica l forms . Chekho v desperately fill s th e gap s an d crack s o f th e subject . H e give s a ver y complete, dense, subjective representation of the hero and his surroundings, only t o giv e th e illusio n o f realit y an d t o participat e i n it s salvaging . However - an d here comes the writing - th e representation no w needs, in order t o appea r mor e perfectl y mimetic , t o b e meaningfull y codifie d an d structured. Fro m no w on , th e representatio n o f th e rea l wil l no t sto p dematerialising, demotivatin g an d destructurin g itsel f int o a mor e ope n text, wher e frontier s an d difference s betwee n dramaturgy , writin g an d characters hav e becom e much mor e blurred , o r eve n non-existent. Fo r we are just about to move, even if the characters, so to speak, have not noticed it, t o th e leve l o f metadiscours e - namely , th e possibilit y o f saying , o f 77 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

PATRICE PAVI S

knowing whethe r on e i s speakin g th e truth , o f remainin g silent . Thes e ar e metadiscursive technique s whic h tak e plac e not s o much o n the leve l o f th e characters' statements, a s on the level of a discursive mechanism , o f textua l indecisiveness, of the continuum o f character/dramaturgy/textuality . Hence th e slightl y monomania c monodram a unwind s an d open s itsel f t o multiple network s o f allusions , echoes , subtexts , whic h ar e al l th e mor e complex a s the motivation s o f th e character s tak e flight an d th e reader s o r spectators erase , b y themselves , th e all-too-explici t information . Thi s complexity an d thi s indecisivenes s ar e mythological , beyon d everyday banality an d triviality , and o f th e undecide d unconsciou s beyon d clear-cu t statements: tim e inescapabl y devour s it s ow n children ; th e so n curse s th e father befor e takin g hi s plac e an d fallin g int o th e sam e traps . Th e faul t cannot b e redeemed , eve n b y violen t death , becaus e i t i s unnameabl e an d daily. The high-flow n question s - ('wh o a m I, what a m I living for, o r wha t do I want?') (Ac t Four, Scene x) - d o not receive any answers . All thi s i s i n Ivanov, a s alway s i n a first play , bu t no t al l o f thi s i s Chekhovian. Chekho v wil l hav e t o forget , t o erase , t o giv e up . A whol e process o f abstractio n an d stylisatio n wil l take place . To erase an d t o forge t the purel y mimeti c representation/performanc e wil l lea d t o a greate r theatricality, t o a playful lightnes s i n th e dialogue s an d th e gestures , t o th e double fac e o f th e Mosco w Ar t Theatre , th e naturalisti c theatr e an d th e theatre o f mood . A doubl e fac e tha t Meyerhold 7 ha d full y recognise d an d which is also Ivanov's. NOTES 1 Se e Peter Szondi's distinctions in La Theorie du Drame Moderne, trans . Patrice Pavis, L'Age d'homme, Lausanne, 1973. English translation, ed. Michael Hays, Minneapolis, 1987. 2 Se e Mikhail Bakhtin, Le Frincipe Dialogique, Paris , 1989 . An English translation i s The Dialogic Imagination, ed . Michael Holquist , trans . Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, Austin, Texas, 1981. 3 I n chapte r 3 of thi s volume Anatol y Smeliansk y make s a related point , albei t within a different context . 4 A n inner part which reflects the whole structure. 5 Rolan d Barthe s call s 'realit y effects ' thos e detail s i n th e tex t whic h giv e th e reader the impression of confronting th e real world. 6 Geor g Biichne r (1813-37) , a medical studen t an d progressive politica l activis t who wrot e severa l subsequentl y renowne d plays : Danton's Death (1835) , Leonce and Lena (1836 ) an d Woyzeck, unfinishe d b y his early deat h i n 183 7 from typhus . Ahea d o f hi s contemporary theatre , Biichner' s play s wer e onl y appreciated an d subsequently performe d a t the end of the nineteenth century . His fragment , Woyzeck, prefigure s muc h o f moder n dram a i n Biichner' s determinism, hi s understanding o f the fatalism o f history an d in his treatment of 78 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Ivanov: the invention of a negative dramaturgy an alienated , inarticulat e ordinar y soldier , Woyzeck, a t th e merc y o f force s h e cannot control or change. 7 Vsevolo d Meyerhold, Theatre naturaliste et theatre d'atmosphere, in Ecrits sur le theatre, L'Age d'homme, trans. Beatrice Pic.on-Vallin, Lausanne, 1973 , vol. 1 , pp. 95-104.

79 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

7 THOMAS KILRO Y

The Seagull: a n adaptatio n

Writers who ar e considered immorta l o r just plain good an d who intoxicat e us have one very important trai t i n common: they ar e going somewhere an d call you with them . . . The best of them are realistic and paint life as it is, but because ever y line is saturated wit h juice , with th e sens e o f life , you feel , in addition to life as it is, life as it should be . . . Chekhov: letter to A.S. Suvorin, 25 November 1892. 1 In 1 9 81 I adapte d The Seagull, resettin g i t o n a n Anglo-Iris h estat e i n th e West o f Ireland , wit h th e tim e o f th e actio n place d i n th e lat e nineteent h century.2 The first reaso n wh y I did thi s was , quit e simply , becaus e I was aske d t o do s o b y Ma x Stafford-Clark , the n artisti c directo r o f th e Roya l Cour t Theatre. Ma x felt , an d I agree d wit h him , tha t som e Englis h languag e productions o f Chekho v tende d toward s a very Englis h gentilit y wher e th e socially specifi c Chekho v tende d t o b e lost i n polit e vagueness . He believe d that a n Anglo-Iris h settin g woul d provid e a specificity , a t onc e remove d from, an d a t th e sam e tim e comprehensibl e to , a n Englis h audience . H e also fel t tha t a n Iris h settin g woul d mor e easil y allo w th e rawnes s o f passion o f th e origina l t o emerge , th e kin d o f semi-farcica l hysteria , whic h Chekhov use s i n th e scene s betwee n Arkadina , Treplyo v an d Trigori n i n Act Three , fo r example : a kin d o f roug h theatricalit y somewha t remove d from polit e Englis h comed y bu t commo n enoug h i n th e Iris h comi c tradition. The secon d reaso n wh y I too k th e commission , a n equall y persuasiv e one, wa s tha t whe n I bega n t o thin k abou t them , th e parallel s betwee n Chekhov's Russi a an d nineteenth-centur y Anglo-Irelan d became , fo r me , extraordinarily vivi d an d apt . Th e resonance s o f Chekhov' s pla y becam e even mor e universalise d whil e I wa s als o abl e t o articulate , i n thi s borrowing fro m a grea t Europea n playwright , certai n perception s tha t I have had abou t th e history o f my own country . 80 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

The Seagull: an adaptation But wh o exactl y wer e th e Anglo-Iris h gentry ? I n th e definitio n o f th e historian F . S . L . Lyons , th e Anglo-Iris h wer e 'th e descendant s o f Englis h settlers i n Ireland , t o who m abou t th e en d o f th e nineteent h centur y th e name Anglo-Irish wa s beginning to be attached. Tha t nam e was not o f thei r seeking, thoug h i t expresse s ver y precisel y th e schizophreni a whic h wa s their natural condition.' 3 Like Chekhov's gentry , the Anglo-Irish landowning clas s no longer exists , having bee n swep t awa y i n th e foundatio n an d late r developmen t o f th e new Irish stat e i n the first decade s o f the twentieth century . In each culture , at th e en d o f th e nineteent h century , ther e wa s thi s pervasiv e sens e o f imminent, drasti c change . I t wa s ver y eas y indee d t o fin d a n equivalen t o f the Chekhovia n moo d o f approachin g darknes s i n suc h a n Anglo-Iris h setting an d a s I went on , th e commo n factor s betwee n Russia n an d Anglo Irish gentry multiplied . Both represente d an d enacte d imperia l authorit y ove r a muc h larger , subservient population . Bot h playe d significant role s i n th e Crow n Civi l Service and i n military command whic h di d s o much t o preserve that powe r in their respectiv e countries . For both , th e source an d symbo l o f that powe r was th e countr y estat e wit h it s dependen t peasantr y o r serf s an d th e instability o f this property i n the latter hal f o f the nineteenth centur y mark s the firs t sign s o f th e disintegratio n o f th e empire s themselves . Whil e thi s loss o f power , fo r bot h Russia n an d Anglo-Iris h gentry , cam e toward s th e end o f th e nineteent h century , bot h classe s coul d loo k bac k wit h nostalgi a to the preceding century a s the period o f their greatest flowering. Here i s how Lyon s describe s th e cultura l milie u o f th e Anglo-Iris h an d i f one change s th e actua l references , on e come s clos e t o th e Russia n counter part: At one level they gave a passable imitation of a governing class on the English model. They acted a s deputy lieutenants o f their counties, as high sheriffs o r as justices o f th e peace , an d the y were prominen t i n local governmen t unti l the end of the nineteenth century. Apart from visits to the Dublin Horse Show and to the winter season at the Viceregal Court, many of them resided all the year roun d i n their Georgia n houses - sometime s beautiful , sometime s ugly, but often dilapidate d and generally uncomfortable - wher e they lived the sort of lif e tha t landlord s live d everywhere . Shooting , fishing, an d hunting , interspersed with hospitality more lavish than they could afford - thi s was the framework o f their lives.4 There is , however , tha t all-importan t distinctio n o f 'th e Englis h model' , something whic h mark s a crucia l distinctio n betwee n th e Anglo-Iris h an d the Russian . Th e Anglo-Iris h represente d a foreign , Englis h powe r i n 81 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

THOMAS KILRO Y

Ireland. Chekhov' s gentr y a t leas t share d a commo n Russia n nationalit y with those around and beneath them. The 'schizophrenia ' o f the Anglo-Irish tha t Lyon s refers t o is the classic condition o f a pro-consular , governin g clas s i n a colonia l situatio n 'tor n between thei r countr y o f origi n an d thei r countr y o f settlement.' 5 Their s was a see-saw condition, caught between two other, irreconcilable cultures, the English and what might be called, for wan t of a better term, the native Irish. For this reason, my adaptation of The Seagull is more overtly political in implicatio n tha n th e original . I t bring s t o th e surfac e th e tension s between th e Anglo-Irish an d the much larger populatio n o f native Irish. It is also set against the Land War, which reached a climax in the 1870s , the radical campaig n fo r tenants ' right s whic h eventuall y destroye d land lordism i n rura l Irelan d an d le d t o th e establishmen t o f moder n Iris h farming. I n my version, th e schoolteache r (Medvedenk o i n the original ) is called Jame s an d h e represent s th e nativ e Iris h peopl e outsid e th e estat e walls, now stirring in the first movements towards successful revolution . Having sai d al l that , ther e wa s anothe r commo n facto r betwee n th e Russian an d Anglo-Iris h gentr y whic h override s th e forc e o f politics . This was th e commo n fat e o f provincia l isolatio n i n a perio d befor e moder n communications. Bot h world s wer e a t a remov e fro m thei r metropolita n centres. Thes e centres , Londo n an d Moscow , serv e a s th e sam e focu s fo r Anglo-Irish an d Russia n sensibilities , a focu s o f desir e an d ambition , o f illusions an d dreams , magnifyin g th e pent-u p emotion s o f thos e remot e households an d offerin g a prospect , a lure , to o ofte n unattainabl e b y sensitive souls. There i s ye t a furthe r geographica l detai l o f som e importanc e t o m y adaptation. B y resettin g th e pla y i n th e Wes t o f Irelan d rathe r tha n elsewhere i n the country I was abl e to fin d a n equivalent fo r another , an d charming, featur e o f th e Chekhovia n househol d - it s promiscuou s socia bility, the way hi s houses fil l up , not onl y with relative s bu t wit h a whole variety of hangers-on and the fact that this sociability crosses class lines. We kno w fro m th e novel s o f Georg e Moor e tha t th e Anglo-Iris h 'Bi g House' in the West of Ireland admitted an d welcomed a great confusion o f social intercourse, far mor e s o than i n other, more anglified , mor e socially stratified part s o f the country. The political an d socia l distinction betwee n Protestant and Catholic, between landlord and professional o r craft classes, between ol d money and new money, indeed, betwee n landlord an d tenant , seemed to dissolve or at least lose something of its rigid parameters west of the river Shannon. One reason fo r this , also o f immense importance i n the major Chekho v plays, i s that th e Western Iris h landlord s tende d t o b e more impoverishe d 82 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

The Seagull: an adaptation than elsewhere . The y wer e no t entirel y insulate d fro m thei r neighbours , their servants, through great wealth. Mutual poverty, relatively speaking, in reducing all , tende d t o effac e th e stiff-necke d barrier s create d b y politic s and socia l snobbery . As in Chekhov, the constant topi c o f conversation i n Anglo-Irish house s seeme d t o b e abou t survivin g financial collapse. Thi s genteel poverty , familia r fro m th e mor e recen t novel s o f th e lat e Moll y Keane, was eventually to spread to the Anglo-Irish throughout Ireland . But in the late nineteenth centur y it was more common i n the West o f Irelan d than elsewhere. In my adaptation, Irina Nikolaevn a Arkadin a become s Isobel Desmond , the Anglo-Iris h actres s o f th e Londo n stage . Bori s Alexeevic h Tregori n becomes Mr Aston , a prolific bu t mino r Englis h novelist. Isobel is visiting the Wes t o f Irelan d estat e o f he r brothe r Peter , a forme r civi l servan t i n Dublin Castle , the centre o f British imperia l powe r i n Ireland prio r t o the foundation o f th e Iris h Fre e Stat e i n 1922 . Shamrae v become s a cousin , Gregory, and this extended family is a feature o f the Anglo-Irish household. The runnin g o f th e estat e o f a n absente e landlor d wa s ofte n lef t i n th e hands o f a poorer relation . The doctor , calle d D r Hickey, an d th e teacher , James, in the play become Catholic outsiders, admitted into the Anglo-Irish circle but , particularl y i n the cas e o f th e teacher , significantl y exclude d a s well. The two young people, Treplyov and Nina, becom e Constantine an d Lily, and their passion fo r theatr e becomes the most distinctive connection of all between the Anglo-Irish and Russian worlds. The Anglo-Iris h contributio n t o th e English-speakin g theatr e ha s bee n immense. We tend to think of this exclusively, and understandably, in terms of individua l playwrights : Farquhar , Sheridan , Goldsmith , Wilde , Shaw , Yeats, Synge , Beckett . Bu t ther e wer e als o figures lik e th e actres s Pe g Woffington who , thoug h o f working-clas s background , ros e throug h th e stage to prominence in Anglo-Irish society in eighteenth-century Dublin; or Lady Gregory, herself a West of Ireland landlord, but also a playwright and theatre manager, who was highly influential i n the foundation o f the Abbey Theatre, Dublin, with Yeats and Synge. In founding a new theatre for Irelan d i n the last decade s o f the century, Gregory, Yeat s an d Syng e turne d away , consciously , fro m th e Englis h model an d dre w thei r inspiration , instead , fro m Iris h peasan t cultur e an d ancient Irish myths and legends (the translations of which, incidentally, had become availabl e largel y throug h th e wor k o f Anglo-Iris h translators , scholars an d antiquarians) . Th e dram a whic h the y create d ha d th e sam e novelty an d strangenes s fo r it s Anglo-Iris h audience s a s Symbolis t dram a would have had fo r th e Russian audienc e represented b y the household of The Seagull. So , in my adaptation, Treplyov's 'decadent ' Symbolis t play in 83 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

THOMAS KILRO Y

Act On e become s Constantine' s 'Celtic ' pla y base d upo n ancien t Iris h myth. The presentatio n o f thi s amateuris h dram a mark s a significan t divid e between the generations, between the old and the new. Chekhov's target is not Symbolist drama a s such but what the occasion reveals of the mother's attitude t o th e son . Constantine's pla y ha s exactly th e sam e kind o f effec t on Isobel which Treplyov's has upon Arkadina. Both women are disturbe d and strangely threatened by what they see and the ineptitude o f the writing in each case allows them to fall bac k upon mockery . Arkadina's distres s is related t o th e perceive d threa t t o he r kin d o f theatr e represente d b y he r son's play, a kind o f ungainly, monstrous power threatening her ou t of the future. Isobe l feel s this , too , bu t i n he r cas e ther e i s th e adde d politica l threat i n tha t Constantine' s pla y come s ou t o f th e suppresse d culture , which a t al l time s wa s threatenin g rebellio n agains t he r clas s an d th e property o f he r family . W e have a n Anglo-Iris h famil y divided : som e stil l looking t o Englan d a s its natural motherland , som e lookin g t o th e nativ e Irish tradition for it s inspiration, an d this division mirrors historical reality in the period. Like the poor imitators of voguish 'new' drama that Chekhov despised, ther e wer e man y theatricall y poo r attempt s a t writin g mytholo gical dram a i n Ireland , sid e b y sid e wit h th e exquisit e one s o f Yeat s an d Synge. Constantine's is one of those. The play-within-the-play in Act One of The Seagull is one of the passages singled out by Eugene K. Bristow in his Norton Critical Edition of the plays as presenting difficultie s fo r th e translator becaus e o f the precise, concret e cultural reference s use d b y Chekhov. 6 I t i s als o th e moment , a s Bristo w recognises, at which the central theme of art , an d more specifically th e ar t of theatre , i s establishe d b y Chekhov . Thi s run s lik e a spina l colum n through th e whole play giving it its main structura l cohesion . The kind of play, then , whic h Treplyo v present s befor e hi s mothe r an d th e househol d and Chekhov' s ow n attitud e toward s it , colour s th e whol e subsequen t dramatic meditation o n art an d an d its relation to the lived life right up to the play's denouement. This dramati c presentatio n o f a cluste r o f idea s o n ar t an d th e artis t draws in each o f the othe r characters . It is connected t o the loyalty whic h both Sori n an d Dor n displa y toward s Treplyov' s writing , on e a simpl e loyalty, the other a more complex one . It is connected t o Arkadina's muc h more comple x attitud e t o th e sam e subject . I t touche s Masha' s patheti c appeal to the writer in Trigorin and her dreams of being in a book. Finally, it provide s th e nexu s betwee n Trigorin , Nin a an d Treplyov , a vocationa l base, as it were, against which is played ou t th e fraught gam e of love and its loss , betwee n th e three . Wha t i t i s t o b e a n artist , wha t i t i s t o b e a

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

The Seagull: an adaptation writer, thi s preoccupation , thi s obsession , fuel s th e othe r feeling s o f affec tion, o f love bu t als o of hatred, o f self-disgust i n the play. In Chekhov, idea s are always enmeshed i n passionate emotion . I hav e trie d t o reproduc e thi s networ k effec t bu t usin g Iris h references . Let me give some examples t o sho w the changes whic h thi s produced i n th e text. The mos t sustained , th e mos t traumati c passag e i n th e pla y i n whic h a n obsession wit h ar t i s see n to affec t feeling , wit h disastrou s consequences , i s that betwee n Trigori n an d Nin a toward s th e end o f Act Two. The scen e is a remarkable demonstratio n o f self-disgus t a s a n instrumen t o f seduction ; Trigorin pile s o n th e image s o f abjec t self-dismissa l befor e thi s youn g gir l who i s s o besotte d b y th e notio n o f ar t tha t eac h disclaimer , eac h rejectio n of hi s ow n worth , simpl y make s he r fee l eve n mor e privileged , mor e priv y to the inner secret s of the artist . The firs t effec t o f m y adaptatio n wa s radicall y t o reduc e th e lengt h o f Trigorin's speeches . This wa s partl y a matte r o f th e tast e o f th e productio n for whic h th e adaptatio n wa s prepared . Bu t i t als o ha d t o d o wit h m y repossession o f Trigori n i n th e shap e o f M r Aston , th e mino r Englis h novelist, wh o cam e t o m e withou t an y o f th e flowering, Russia n imagery ; he becam e a dappe r Victorian , parsimonious , edgy , neuroti c an d acutel y aware o f finding himsel f i n foreign parts . The Chekhovia n image s o f moon , relay horses , cloud , heliotrope , hone y bees , gambler , fo x hun t an d misse d trains becam e somethin g les s natural , mor e mechanical , mor e i n tun e wit h the vision o f living death i n Victorian England . Here is the Bristow translation an d my own adaptation : There are some persistent notions that dominate a person's mind, for instance, when someone thinks constantly about the moon day and night. Well, I have my own kind of moon. Day and night one persistent thought obsesse s me - I must write, I must write, I m u s t . .. I no sooner finish one story than for some reason or other I must write the next, then a third, and after tha t a fourth . . . I write endlessly, exactly as relay horses run, and I can't d o it differently. S o I ask you , what' s particularl y beautifu l o r brillian t abou t that ? Oh , wha t a senseless and remote way to live! Here I am with you, I'm overwrought. . 7 How curious. I've becom e quite excited, actuall y nervous, almost hysterical . Very well . Le t u s tal k calmly , abov e all , accurately , abou t thi s beauty , thi s beautiful life , as you put it. To begin with, I'm obsessive. I have this obsession, you see, as many people do, by which I become a machine, an engine, utterly without will , feeling , withou t risk , cog s merel y slippin g int o thei r place s o n the wheel. Click-click. Do you understand what I mean? Perhaps not. It is not important. I n fact i t is extremely monotonous . But o f cours e yo u d o understand. You are obviously an intelligent, sensitive young woman.8

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

THOMAS KILRO Y

Dorn's Europea n tri p i s an ingenious devic e o n Chekhov' s par t t o allo w a narrative summar y a t the beginnin g o f Act Four, filling i n the detail s for th e audience o f wha t ha s happene d i n th e two-yea r interim . Th e docto r ha s t o be told an d i n th e tellin g w e ar e brough t u p t o dat e o n th e sorr y conditio n of bot h Nin a an d Treplyov . Bu t i t is also a trigger t o reintroduc e tha t play within-the pla y o f Act One , rounding of f th e great meditatio n o n art. In th e original thi s i s don e b y Dor n rememberin g th e play' s them e o f a universa l soul as he was buffeted b y the warm turbulenc e o f a crowd o n the streets of Genoa. I n my adaptation , th e cit y become s Pari s an d th e experienc e i s altogether mor e cultural. Here is Dr Hickey fro m th e adaptation : Well, Paris is a different plac e to different people , I dare say. For me, it is the Salon and the Opera Comique . For others it may be the cafe life, the cuisine or the intellectual conversation. By the way, Constantine, did I tell you? There is great interest nowadays over there in the Celtic thing and all that. I believe Professor d e Joubainville's lecture s o n th e ol d Celti c mytholog y ar e highl y regarded i n th e Colleg e d e France . I though t o f you r play . Remember ? Moytura. The one about the battle of the two giants, the Light and the Dark. The one which Lily acted for us , outside on the lawn. Was it two years ago? By the way, whatever has become of Lily?9 My us e o f Pari s wa s t o dra w attentio n t o th e fac t tha t th e Anglo-Iris h fascination wit h Celti c mythology an d folklor e wa s no t confine d t o Irelan d at tha t time . D e Joubainville's lecture s wer e attende d b y John M . Syng e i n 1898. This contact wit h ancien t Irish lore in the lectures o f a French schola r may a t leas t hav e ha d a s muc h effec t a s th e famou s injunctio n o f Yeat s t o the younge r playwright , tw o year s earlier , tha t h e retur n t o th e Ara n Islands, of f th e Wes t Coas t o f Ireland , an d writ e abou t th e peopl e there , which Synge , of course did , with remarkabl e results. 10 My us e of Moytura a s the myth o f Constantine's pla y has anothe r Anglo Irish echo , on e o f som e persona l meanin g t o me . I t wa s a myt h whic h entranced Si r Willia m Wilde , th e surgeon-cum-folkloris t fathe r o f Osca r Wilde t o th e extent tha t h e named on e o f hi s summe r home s b y that name . The hous e wa s on e o f the few possession s lef t t o th e impoverished Osca r i n his las t year s i n Paris . Unfortunately, i t wa s sol d t o pa y creditors bu t i t stil l stands jus t a fe w mile s dow n th e roa d fro m wher e I a m no w writin g thi s chapter. In The Seagull, a s s o ofte n elsewhere , Chekho v i s writin g abou t th e mysterious, contradictor y effect s o f failure . Th e fac t tha t h e conduct s thi s theatricalised discours e o n ar t an d it s complex relationshi p t o the life o f th e artistic practitioner , throug h th e figure s o f a faile d artist , a rathe r vulga r actress, a mediocre, self-hating write r an d a young actres s wh o ma y o r ma y not succeed , account s fo r th e rich layering of ideas in the play. The fac t tha t

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

The Seagull: an adaptation Treplyov's pla y i s a poo r dramati c vehicl e doe s no t mea n tha t Chekho v himself despise d Symbolis t dram a or , indeed , ne w form s o f theatr e gener ally. It means tha t thi s is the way he set s Treplyov upo n hi s journey throug h failure toward s illuminatio n an d thi s illuminatio n occur s moment s befor e he shoot s himself . T o arriv e a t a convictio n a s t o wha t i s o f valu e i n lif e i s not enough . I f on e give s al l t o bein g a n artis t an d fails , ther e i s no poin t i n continuing an d thi s i s th e blea k conclusio n o f thi s comedy . I t i s a s i f th e struggle t o b e a n artis t ha s opene d hi s ow n sou l t o Treplyo v an d wha t h e has see n there is chaos. Bristow identifie s th e moment o f illuminatio n i n Treplyo v a s coming jus t before Nin a rap s upo n th e windo w i n Ac t Fou r an d i s brough t int o th e room. I t i s par t o f a monologu e o n styl e whic h engage s th e contrastin g elements o f exactitude , specificity , o n th e on e han d an d impressionisti c lyricism o n th e other , precisel y th e element s crucia l t o Chekhov' s ow n art . It i s a s i f Chekho v i s writin g ou t o f a ghostl y versio n o f hi s ow n youthfu l self, the on e who migh t hav e failed. Th e great, bu t extremel y difficul t scen e between th e young couple tha t follow s bring s a final sunderin g an d i t is no t merely on e o f emotion . I n the steel y accountin g o f thi s pla y sh e has draw n strength fro m failure , h e has draw n despair , an d thereb y the y ar e separate d forever. Here i s tha t momen t o f Treplyov' s illumination , firstl y i n Bristow' s translation, the n from m y own adaptation : I've talke d an d talke d a lot abou t ne w forms , ye t I feel no w tha t I too a m slipping little by little into a conventional rut . . . Yes, I'm invariabl y coming more and more to the conviction that the issue is a question neither of old nor of new forms, bu t that a person simply writes, never thinking about the kind of forms, he writes because it pours freely out of his soul.11 Useless, absolutel y useless ! 'W e nee d ne w form s tha t wil l brin g bac k th e ancient wisdom of the people.' What does that mean? I have no contact with the people. Merely stories out of old books written in a strange, lost language . . . New forms! What doe s any of it matter s o long as it is true to what on e feels?12 Of course , I ha d anothe r grea t write r i n min d whe n constructin g thi s Anglo-Irish Constantine , one , too , whos e ar t move d betwee n th e concret e and th e evanescent , th e broke n nec k o f a bottl e an d distant , tremulou s music, th e see n an d th e unseen . Yeats , too , lik e Chekhov , struggle d t o ge t that balanc e right . Lik e Constantin e i n my adaptation , he , too , wa s immensely awar e o f th e obstacle s i n hi s attempt s t o writ e 'o f th e people' . He wa s a far mor e politica l creatur e tha n Chekho v an d althoug h h e fough t against extrem e nationalism , hi s theatrical movemen t wa s bu t on e o f man y 87 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

THOMAS KILRO Y

movements towards national self-expressio n a t the time, all of which came to a hea d i n th e country' s Wa r o f Independenc e (1919-21) . Bu t Yeat s would hav e immediatel y recognise d th e tragi c perceptio n i n thi s youn g man's speech, that if the written word is not grounded in the deep personal feeling of the writer, it is nothing. For a write r wh o i s s o dependen t upo n mood , tone , nuance , ther e i s concrete materia l realit y behin d everythin g whic h Chekho v wrote . Thi s hard, concret e specificit y require s a simila r exactitud e i n an y adaptatio n and, indeed, in any production o f the plays. Without i t there is always the danger o f a fals e Chekhovia n style , a self-regardin g surrende r t o tha t seductive moo d o f ennui. It wa s on e o f th e extraordinar y experience s o f adapting The Seagull to find suc h specific detail s leaping ou t o f the period of Iris h histor y an d fro m th e Englis h theatrica l an d literar y background . But there was als o the soli d foundation fo r thos e more intimate, domesti c details o f Chekho v a s well: the lo w wage s o f a schoolmaster hobnobbin g with those of apparent wealth; the peculiar panic of the powerful whe n the power begins to ebb away; how aging changes the shape of thinking as well as the body. The late Peggy Ramsay13 was one of the great figures o f post-war British theatre, a woma n o f immens e influenc e fa r beyon d tha t o f a dramatist' s agent. When I began work on The Seagull she said to me that translation or adaptation wa s 'a form o f privileged conversation with an author' bu t that you woul d 'hav e t o reac h belo w superficia l detail ' befor e tha t privileg e would be granted. It was some time before I understood what sh e had said and when I did, Russian an d Anglo-Iris h setting s becam e irrelevant. What mattered was the amplitude of Chekhov's vision of human life. In writing the plays he seemed to project himsel f int o a future an d fro m this mysteriou s poin t i n tim e h e look s bac k a t th e creature s o f hi s imagination. In that sense , in writing the plays he was compiling a kind of history. Certainly , n o othe r playwrigh t ha s a mor e acut e historica l sensi bility in the way the plays are authentic records o f a time past bu t als o by the way they ar e permeated b y the ordeal o f time passing an d haunte d b y the glimme r o f tim e t o come . Thi s sens e o f tim e an d it s effect s i s particularly underline d i n The Seagull becaus e o f tha t two-yea r ga p between Act Three and Act Four. This almost Olympia n perspectiv e is the source or a t least vehicle of his immense generosity a s a writer, which somehow coexists with that implacable gaze. There are no heroes in Chekhov. Even the servants blossom into place becaus e h e understood ho w th e proces s o f tim e diminishe s eve n the most Napoleoni c o f egos . Whe n thi s process , a s i n The Seagull, is a demonstration o f the awful persistenc e of failure an d that the continuity of

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

The Seagull: an adaptation life depend s upo n movin g throug h an d beyon d failure , the n th e dram a becomes one of a moral testing. Stars like to pla y mino r character s i n Chekhov, somethin g whic h is not quite as true of Shakespeare. This distribution o f attention b y the writer t o each characte r i n th e play is , at firs t sight , a n immens e technica l achieve ment in play-making. But then you realise that it is essentially an acknowledgement o f things as they are in the world - 'lif e a s it is', a type of moral realism. Thi s fierc e gri p o n the present momen t give s a n almos t unendur able patho s t o thos e characters , lik e Nina/Lily , wh o reac h ou t toward s a future, t o what might be, as if it were already in place, while we know that it may never actually materialise. Certain voices , too , throughou t th e majo r play s (Tuzenbak h an d Ver shinin in Three Sisters, Astrov in Uncle Vanya, and Treplyov) allude to that future, ofte n i n word s tha t recal l Chekhov' s ow n letters . Th e character s may be cynical, apocalyptic, absurd, romantic or astute, but what they add up to is a kind o f negative self-portrait , a n ironical subjectio n b y Chekhov of hi s own , ofte n passionatel y held , idea s t o th e levellin g exposur e o f comedy. The self-effacement o f Chekhov is but another way of describing a writer wh o accepte d completel y tha t h e wa s himsel f subjec t t o th e sam e follies a s hi s creations . A t thi s lat e stag e o f th e twentiet h century , a s we stagger about under the weight of its self-conciousness, this simple fact may appear exceptional, even radical. The dynami c o f The Seagull, then , exist s wel l belo w it s socia l detai l i n the human e bu t rigorou s discrimination s o f Chekho v himsel f betwee n th e frailty o f human behaviou r an d the absolute demands o f love, between the generosity o f lov e - an d th e imperiousnes s o f art . Th e pla y i s fille d wit h those awkward, clumsy moments when people try to cope with daily living while at the same time in the grip of obsessions an d aspirations , unable to see anything wit h clarity , unsure o f puttin g on e foot i n front o f th e other . The condition is comic, of course, but a kind of comedy which invites many different response s from a n audience. Here, too, is another version of time. For all their sense of imminence, of the moment about-to-be, all Chekhov's plays ar e roote d i n a n untid y present , ful l o f inconsequentialities , o f ordinary helplessness . The Seagull, lik e the other majo r plays , is placed in this curiou s shel l o f time , past-present-future , bu t eac h phrase , eac h gesture, i s a grindin g effor t t o dea l wit h thos e immediate , troublesom e moments of the here and now. To those who are bothered about adaptations, seeing them as parasitic or even a violatio n o f th e original , ther e i s simpl y onl y on e answer . Th e history o f theatr e i s a histor y o f adaptation , beginning , an d continuing , with th e extraordinary variet y o f repossessions o f the Greeks . There is no

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

THOMAS KILRO Y

obvious explanatio n a s t o wh y thi s mediu m i n particula r (an d als o it s offshoots i n cinem a an d television ) i s s o give n t o borrowin g an d recyclin g of materia l fro m withi n it s ow n tradition . Fo r som e reason , theatr e ha s always enjoye d thi s activity , ha s see n i t a s essentiall y theatrica l an d i t ha s never fel t tha t th e integrit y o f th e origina l ha s bee n damage d i n an y way . Quite th e contrary . Th e goo d adaptatio n alway s send s on e bac k t o th e original, afres h an d wit h a new appreciatio n o f its worth . NOTES Where the translations have not bee n made b y the autho r himself, the Englishlanguage version used is that of Eugene K. Bristow (see note 6 below). 1 Quote d fro m Lillia n Hellman , ed . an d intro. , The Selected Letters of Anton Chekhov, trans. Sidonie K. Lederer, London, 1984 , p. 172 2 Thoma s Kilroy , adapt. , The Seagull, Loughcrew, Meath , Ireland , 1993 . Premiered on 8 April 1981, Royal Court, London, dir. Max Stafford-Clark . 3 F.S.L . Lyons, Culture and Anarchy in Ireland, I8<)O-I<)3<), Oxford , 1982 , p . 18. 4 Ibid., p. 19. 5 Ibid. 6 Eugen e K . Bristow, ed . and trans., Anton Chekhov's Plays, New York, 1977, pp. xxiv—xxv . 7 The Seagull, Act Two, in ibid., p. 25. Hingley, Oxford Chekhov, vol . 11, Ac t Two, p . 255 . 8 Kilroy , The Seagull, Act Two, pp. 48-9 . 9 Ibid., Act Four, p. 75. 10 Thi s resulted in Synges' plays, In the Shadow of the Glen (1903); Riders to the Sea (1904); The Well of the Saints ( 1905); Deirdre of the Sorrows (1910) ; The Tinker's Wedding (1971 , first productio n a t th e Abbey), an d the famou s The Playboy of the Western World (1907) . The dates refer t o the first productions at Dublin's Abbey Theatre. 11 The Seagull, Ac t Four , i n Bristow , Anton Chekhov's Plays, p . 47. Hingley , Oxford Chekhov, vol. 11, Act Four, p. 277 . 12 Kilroy , The Seagull, pp. 81-2. 13 Margare t Ramsay (1908-91 ) whos e agency, Margaret Ramsa y Ltd., was one of the leadin g playwrights ' agencie s i n th e English-speakin g theatre . Afte r he r death th e agenc y continue d a s Casarott o Ramsa y an d Associates Limited . See Colin Chambers, Peggy, London, 1997.

90 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

8 LEONID HEIFET Z

Notes from a director: Uncle Vanya

In different period s o f one' s life a s a director - a s well a s of a spectator o r reader - on e finds i n Chekhov somethin g whic h seem s particularly signifi cant a t a specifi c momen t i n time . I hav e no w don e tw o production s o f Uncle Vanya: th e first, i n 1969 , at th e Centra l Sovie t Army Theatre (no w the Russian Army Theatre) i n Moscow; and then the second production in 1991, i n Turkey a t the Istanbul Municipal Theatre . Each done in differen t countries, and at different times . In thos e intervenin g years , I hav e neve r bee n parte d fro m Chekhov , whether in my thinking or in my practical work. I directed Three Sisters in Turkey (1988) , an d The Cherry Orchard a s a televisio n productio n (Moscow, 1976) , a s wel l a s i n th e theatr e i n Kirgizi a (1983) , i n Turke y (1986) an d i n Polan d (1997) . Bu t m y memorie s o f thos e firs t encounter s with Uncle Vanya remain uniquel y precious . When I recall m y memories, thoughts an d experience s o f tha t work , I alway s fee l somethin g ha d changed i n tha t perio d o f time , bot h i n m e an d i n m y perceptio n o f th e play. Yet at the same time, something has also always remained immutable. An ol d entr y fro m m y diary reads : 'One evenin g I was rereadin g Uncle Vanya. Without an y specia l purpos e o r reason . An d suddenl y I felt sad . This alway s happens whe n you read Chekhov . But towards th e end of the play, I realised that somethin g differen t ha d happened t o me. And reading Sonya's final lines about stars, shining like diamonds, I felt not sadness, but fury. 'W e shal l rest! ' Thes e ar e no t word s o f consolation , bu t o f intransi gence: we shal l res t irrespective o f anythin g o r everyone . No matte r ho w hard it is going to be: We shall rest. This is a challenge: Sonya's last outburst of fur y an d elevate d courag e becam e a n interna l imperativ e fo r remem bering Uncle Vanya for ever and ever. . ,' 1 And I have alway s remembered. Nearl y thirt y year s hav e passed sinc e I made that entry. The century and the millennium ar e running out . The age has grown old, and so have we. And now I would find it difficult t o ask the actress playin g Sony a t o expres s th e feeling s tha t overwhelme d u s i n th e

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

LEONID HEIFET Z

late 1960s : to do wha t youn g Natash a Vilkin a manage d t o express wit h such tragic power. Perhaps today this challenge would sound inappropriate, even ludicrous. For no w we know tha t w e shall not se e the stars , shinin g like diamonds , an d tha t to o man y peopl e woul d prefe r t o hav e diamond s not in the sky , bu t somewher e close r to hand. An d thes e day s I perceive Sonya's monologu e a s word s o f consolation . No w ther e i s no fury , bitterness o r challenge , bu t compassio n an d love . None o f this, however , means that Uncle Vanya now seems to me a quiet an d serene play. On the contrary, it is turbulent an d passionate , bu t th e sens e o f romanti c protes t has gone. The acuteness and scop e of our present-day perception s sharpe n awareness o f Uncle Vanya's agony. Not melancholy , bu t the specific agon y of dying, and awareness that life has been a complete failure. As a young director I did not realise the actuality of Uncle Vanya's talk of suicide a s strongl y a s I do now . 'I' m forty-seven . Suppos e I live till sixty . Thirteen year s t o go. A long tim e . . .'2 Previously thes e word s di d no t mean muc h to me bu t now , whe n I myself a m lon g pas t forty-seve n an d have bee n throug h s o much, th e sinister actualit y o f the situation is disturbing. Suicid e rate s i n the worl d hav e no t decline d an d perhap s th e next 'candidate' is here - in the audience . . . Why don't we try and save at least one life, keep him or her on this earth a little longer? How? By letting people fee l the y ar e no t alon e an d ar e care d for , b y trying t o war m thei r hearts, b y loving the m mor e tha n w e lov e ourselves . Thi s wil l tak e an enormous spiritual effort, bu t today I can see no other meaning or purpose for staging Uncle Vanya. Uncle Vanya' s humiliatio n jarre d o n m e whe n I was young . I couldn't understand ho w a man coul d b e s o crazy abou t a woman tha t h e woul d give u p al l dignity, an d be g her : ' I know m y chance s o f any retur n are negligible. They are negligible. But I want nothing. Only let me look at you sometimes, hear your voice.' It would see m that then I was unaware o f the magnetism o f love, eve n thoug h I was alread y a married ma n an d ha d a daughter. Decades later , I became awar e of this, bu t I' m stil l no t sur e if I can fee l th e entir e measur e o f despair an d exaltatio n whic h give s Uncl e Vanya the right to speak those words. It is, after all , a matter o f sensibilities . They can evolv e towards cruelt y or th e othe r wa y round . Ther e wa s a time whe n classicis m i n the theatr e gave wa y to romanticism which , in turn, wa s late r 'dislodged ' b y natur alism. Thi s evolutio n reflecte d change s in sensibilities, in the intensit y o f perception. Ostrovsky' s play s wer e initiall y censore d i n Russia a s to o shocking an d forthright . Th e emergenc e o f the Mosco w Ar t Theatr e lat e last century was a reaction to the bombastic style of the Academic Imperial Theatres.3 In the middle o f this century, the Sovremenni k (Contemporary )

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Notes from a director: Uncle Vanya Company wa s bor n - t o spea k th e ver y trut h which , unde r Stalin' s totalitarian regime , wa s eve n mor e seductiv e tha n durin g th e MAT' s origi n and development . Th e sam e ha s happene d t o ou r perception s o f Chekhov . The pensiv e lyricis m o f th e MAT stagings gav e way t o th e crue l styl e o f th e 1960s. My 196 9 production , condemne d b y critic s fo r excessiv e cruelty , woul d today loo k slac k an d flabby, fo r ou r moder n theatr e i s certainly mor e cruel . Even Pete r Brook' s acclaime d mid-1970 s Frenc h productio n o f The Cherry Orchard woul d see m serene and gentle compared t o more recent stagings . But t o retur n t o th e play , Uncle Vanya. Le t u s rea d th e ver y first scene , which I defin e a s 'Astrov' s grievance' . Th e grievanc e o f th e docto r calle d out to see a patient, riskin g a breakneck rid e o f thirty miles, only to find ou t that th e patien t i s no t a t hom e an d i s apparentl y quit e well . Th e nanny , Marina, love s Astro v and , knowin g ho w h e feels , sh e trie s t o pu t hi s min d at ease. MARINA Hav e a bite, my dear fellow. ASTROV Don' t feel like it. . . MARINA Hav e some vodka then? ASTROV No . I don't drink vodka every day. Besides, it's

hot. (A pause)

These first line s o f th e play , a superficiall y insignifican t exchange , ar e absolutely remarkabl e fo r thei r intonation ; fo r th e musi c o f th e 'humani tarian' whic h sound s i n bot h o f them . Th e ol d nanny , o r nurse , see s ho w bad th e docto r feels , bu t how to convey his feelings ? In my productio n i n 1969 , Astro v wa s waitin g fo r th e supposedl y 'sick ' Professor Serebryakov , sittin g o n a chai r an d tappin g wit h hi s stick , a s though t o emphasis e th e iron y o f th e situatio n an d t o sho w tha t h e doesn' t take i t seriously . Bu t toda y I woul d sugges t t o th e actor s a quit e differen t means o f expressin g Astrov' s restlessnes s an d grievance . The sensibilitie s o f the mid-1990 s cal l fo r a heightene d leve l o f tension . Astrov' s ironi c melancholy i s insufficient an d inadequate . The insul t i s gnawing a t his guts. He i s i n th e kin d o f moo d whe n lif e seem s especiall y meaningles s an d pointless. I f th e pla y open s wit h suc h a hig h pitc h o f emotions , i t wil l achieve the driving force necessar y t o heighten dramati c tensions . Now w e hav e starte d th e play . Wha t I cal l 'Astrov' s grievance ' i s th e opening event . But in the Russian directoria l traditio n ther e i s the notion o f an 'initia l event' , a kin d o f poin t o f departur e whic h typifie s Chekhov' s drama. Ou t o f necessity , a t th e first rehearsa l I would tal k wit h th e actor s about a typica l Chekhovia n situation : arriva l - an d departure . Th e whol e story o f The Cherry Orchard unfold s betwee n tw o ordinar y events : th e arrival o f Ranevskay a - an d th e departur e o f Ranevskaya . Th e stor y o f

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

LEONID HEIFET Z

Three Sisters also ha s it s boundaries: lif e i n the tow n change s wit h th e arrival of the artillery regiment - and returns to normal when the regiment leaves. In Uncle Vanya this situation is especially graphic: life on the estate was monotonou s an d peacefu l unti l th e arriva l o f the Serebryakovs , th e Professor an d hi s wife. Wit h thei r arriva l th e pleasant dul l rhyth m of country life explodes, but again the story ends with a departure. (The story is the action, unfolding o n stage in the eyes of the audience. But in the play, each character has a pre-history, something which has happened befor e the curtain rises , somethin g unspoke n an d unperformed , bu t whic h ca n be guessed, deduced or imagined.) Simultaneous wit h th e 'initia l event ' whic h pushe s th e action , ther e is also the 'mai n event' - Uncle Vanya's violent revolt. One can imagine that after th e Serebryakovs leave, the neighbourhood wil l gossip for a long time about somethin g terrifyin g whic h happene d a t this house : the attemp t to kill a man. One man fired two shots at the other. He missed, but this was a murder attempt, followed b y a suicide attempt. The audienc e see s Uncl e Vany a fire at the Professo r wit h hi s revolver , miss, collaps e wit h despai r an d shame , an d the n tr y to kill himsel f wit h poison he has stolen from th e doctor; and it takes considerable effort b y his relatives to take this poison awa y from him . In contrast t o my production of th e lat e 1960s , today I would interpre t th e stor y o f thi s rebellio n wit h more emphasi s o n th e cruelty . It is a scene of blood, eve n thoug h bloo d wasn't spilt , an d o f two misse d shots , fired on e afte r anothe r ('Bang ! I missed? Misse d again?!' ) - whic h ca n mak e th e audienc e laugh . Bu t it is both laughable and terrifying . It i s also necessar y t o talk t o the actors abou t th e accumulation of conflict. Th e socia l aspec t o f this conflic t i s only on e of many, althoug h Russian experience and mentality prohibit on e from ignorin g it completely. In m y Turkis h productio n o f Uncle Vanya, the acto r playin g Voynitsk y (Vanya) als o threw his books an d manuscripts a t the Professor, an d sheet s of paper were flying all over the space. This scene, it seems, reflected som e of my own personal experiences. It was my revolt, my protest against those vast volumes which until recently had filled our lives; against those idols we had worshippe d an d th e fals e truth s w e had believed . I went throug h thi s personally - not that I threw books at anybody or burned them. My revolt was quiet : I walked away . Escaped . I n this sense , Uncl e Vany a i s more straightforward an d mor e honest . Illusions , causin g u s to make grave n images, ar e a n eternal proble m fo r humankind. Illusion s ar e perpetuall y created - and inevitably ruined. Our society is still buried under these ruins. Our way of life suddenl y came tumbling down , exposing the previous lies, and throwing people into awarenes s o f wasted lives - their ow n and those

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Notes from a director: Uncle Vanya of others. In this sense , too, Chekhov's play has relevance an d reference t o the present day. But th e socia l aspec t o f th e conflic t i s th e director' s concern . Fo r th e actors, it is important for them to know that at the core of Uncle Vanya are personal relationships. Vanya's disappointment i n life essentially grows out of his unrequited feeling s fo r Yelen a Andreyevna. Hi s mind is scorched by the thoughts o f injustice whe n some people, like the Professor, hav e everything: n o matte r ho w ol d an d grey , the y ar e famous , love d b y beautifu l women an d liv e i n luxury , whil e others , lik e Uncl e Vanya , hav e nothing . One has the feeling that in spite of all his pains and gout, the Professor will live for a hundred years, while Uncle Vanya will have expired much earlier. The patter n o f relationship s i n Uncle Vanya is so clear tha t on e woul d have to work extremely hard to make this play incomprehensible - bu t this happens often enough , in both the Russian theatre and abroad. I have seen productions b y directors who do not believe that love is always relevant to the presen t da y - an d wh o therefor e loo k fo r somethin g mor e topica l o r fashionable. Bu t Chekhov's play rests entirely o n love. The modern theatr e seeks different approache s t o Chekhov, but for m e the only right directio n is t o di g deepe r inside , becaus e th e dept h o f th e soul , th e dept h o f perception, the depth of pain, has no limits. But if there is no such searching deep inside , i f socia l temperamen t o r a predilectio n fo r 'effects ' o r ne w forms fo r thei r ow n sak e impe l director s t o tr y an d strik e a t th e audienc e with som e pioneerin g interpretatio n o f Chekhov , the n th e audienc e doe s not usually respond. My experience s abroad , beginnin g wit h th e first production i n th e lat e 1970s, hav e helpe d m e t o realis e th e valu e o f simpl e an d eterna l truths . Audiences respon d whe n th e directo r succeed s i n conveyin g th e essentia l affinity o f huma n experiences . A n Eskim o an d a n Africa n g o throug h basically th e sam e experience s whe n the y ar e born , liv e an d di e o n thi s earth. This may be cliched, but ignoring this makes it rather difficult fo r the director to convince and move the audience, especially a foreign one. When I directed Chekhov's plays in Turkey, at first they seemed infinitel y remote fro m tha t country' s custom s an d traditions . Bu t bot h The Cherry Orchard and Uncle Vanya played t o packe d house s fo r a n unbroke n five years. Why? In the Turkish Uncle Vanya everything was focussed o n love, something everyone understood. Here is a beautiful, charmin g woman, Yelena - [o r in Hingley's version, Helen] - an d three men around her . In the first rehearsal it wa s immediatel y possibl e t o sea t th e woma n i n a chair, mak e th e thre e men stan d b y the wal l an d explai n t o them thei r part s an d th e patter n o f their relationships . On e ma n love s an d desire s th e woma n an d i t look s a s

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

LEONID HEIFET Z

though sh e returns his feelings. The other als o loves and desires her, but he doesn't have a chance. And the third man is simply her husband whil e the other two want to take her away from him. Inside such a 'triangle', tensions and struggles break out naturally. And at a certain distance from them , you place a girl wit h larg e eyes (Sonya ) an d tel l he r tha t th e first man i s your love and dream , an d that yo u only feel aliv e when you se e him. The other one, your uncle , is helpless an d desperate . And the third man , your father , has become a terror in the home. This is only a blueprint, an outline, but it makes everything become clear. It i s clear wha t a n elderl y husban d is . It is clear wha t i t means t o be a woman, living with a n old man, when two othe r me n in love with her are around. It may no t b e immediatel y clea r ho w falle n idol s brea k people' s lives, bu t i n the en d thi s als o ma y b e understood . S o working o n Uncle Vanya in Istanbul, I had no problems with national specifics. Another aspect is the degree of openness in expressing feelings. Turkey is an Islami c countr y wit h age-ol d househol d tradition s an d ethics , wher e expression i s traditionally restrained , an d a woman i s certainly no t th e centre of the universe. And it took some effort t o find the balance between the open expression of feelings which typifies modern life - and the Turkish theatrical traditio n fo r performin g lov e scenes. The power o f feeling i s the same, bu t different nation s i n different time s expres s i t differently. Fo r instance, I don't kno w how , i n th e origina l Mosco w Ar t Theatr e produc tion, Stanislavsk y a s Astrov declare d lov e t o Olg a Knippe r a s Yelena Andreyevna: ho w h e too k he r b y th e hand , an d stol e he r kisse s i n that fleeting momen t when Uncle Vanya was out picking flowers. In our modern theatre, I would recommend tha t th e actor need s to be more energetic and aggressive. Today we can feel the powerful eroticis m of Chekhov's play, we can talk about it and perform it. I believe there was a very strong masculine charge i n Chekhov , an d the tuberculosis, loneliness , anticipatio n and separation (fro m his wife, Olga Knipper) only activated it. I am surprised t o hear peopl e arguing about whether Yelen a really loves Astrov o r at what momen t the y first notice eac h other . Thes e tw o peopl e are visibl y burnin g wit h th e desir e t o be close ; the y ar e o n th e verg e o f losing contro l o f themselve s - an d no t onl y in the 'interrogatio n scene ' of the third act. It is difficult t o explain the leave-taking scene at the end of the play logically , whe n everythin g i s ready fo r departure, bag s packe d an d loaded - th e husban d ma y ente r a t an y moment , ye t they stil l thro w themselves a t each othe r an d Astrov again tries to persuade Yelena to stay and g o with hi m ou t into th e 'fresh air' . Th e stronge r thi s desir e for possession, the more the erotic charge is infused i n the actors, and the more fascinating the performance wil l be. 96

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Notes from a director: Uncle Vanya I canno t sa y I fully manage d t o achiev e this , eithe r i n th e first, o r i n th e second production . Thi s ca n b e don e b y actors , possessin g som e moder n techniques, an d havin g th e courag e an d determinatio n t o perfor m real desire an d carr y i t to the highest level . This i s the sourc e o f many situation s and conflicts i n th e play, bu t certainl y no t th e onl y source . In Chekho v i t is always importan t t o maintai n th e balanc e an d su m tota l o f all th e cause s and component s o f the action: whether intimat e an d personal o r social . The objectivit y an d breadt h o f perception , th e abilit y t o se e th e under lying cause s an d t o b e fair , al l typif y Chekho v - an d presen t majo r difficulties fo r us . Perhaps th e bes t illustratio n o f thi s i s Chekhov's attitud e towards hi s ow n characters . Separat e moment s an d motif s o f th e pla y cal l for detaile d discussion , bu t thi s i s even more th e case with th e characterisa tion! It seem s t o m e that character s i n Uncle Vanya, a s well a s in th e othe r plays, ar e ver y clos e t o Chekhov . Th e onl y characte r i n al l o f Chekhov' s plays whom I really detes t is Yasha in The Cherry Orchard, bu t working o n that play , th e acto r an d I tried t o b e objectiv e an d discove r eve n thi s man' s 'truth' too. As for Uncle Vanya, al l the characters ar e close an d clea r t o me , but this didn' t happe n immediately . Another entr y fro m m y ol d diary : 'Sony a . . . I t al l starte d wit h her . Fascination wit h thes e unpretentiou s country-lif e scene s bega n wit h thi s twenty-year-old girl , th e beaut y an d powe r o f he r soul , he r unbendin g dignity, her lov e an d despair . I even blame d mysel f fo r bein g unfai r t o othe r characters. But Sony a prove d t o b e the clue to al l the others. And i f initiall y the pla y wer e t o b e retitle d Sonya, the n soo n afterward s w e woul d b e rehearsing Astrov , Serebryakov , Waffles , Uncl e Vany a an d the n agai n Sonya, Yelena Andreyevna , an d s o on. ' I a m recallin g th e pas t onl y t o stres s tha t explorin g Chekho v i s always a process, a journey . I t ca n star t wit h an y episod e o r an y line , o r wit h curiosity abou t on e characte r o r another : wit h Sonya , o r Telegi n (nick named 'Waffles') , o r ol d Mary a Vasilyevn a (Maman) , an d eac h wil l lea d you t o th e other s - and , ultimately , t o th e whol e play . Ever y on e o f Chekhov's character s ha s a faith , a truth , a n individuality , an d eac h on e seems particularly clos e an d important. 4 I a m tryin g t o understan d thes e peopl e throug h myself , my age , m y experiences an d observations . Having live d for ove r sixt y years, I have bee n through man y o f th e situation s an d phase s o f lif e tha t ar e foun d i n thi s play. Th e onl y characte r I hav e no t bee n mysel f i s probabl y Waffles , a lonely an d good-hearte d ma n wh o ha s becom e par t o f th e famil y an d th e home. Bu t eve n her e ther e i s a certai n affinity : th e lonelines s followin g th e loss o f hi s wife. I too happe n t o hav e bee n lef t alone , lik e everyon e o n thi s earth. 97 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

LEONID HEIFET Z

I even try t o pu t mysel f i n Serebryakov' s shoes . After all , it is unfair to think o f Serebryako v a s a monster, a n evil creature an d the only source of the conflic t tha t strike s th e family . Character s in Chekhov's play s d o no t lend themselve s t o divisio n int o th e righteous an d th e guilty. They canno t be placed o n two side s of the barricade . I would b e bored t o see a play in which the Professor i s presented only as a talentless fraud. N o doubt he has had comman d o f his professio n an d ha s worke d har d i n the fieldof education. He has been loved by his students, and by two beautiful women : his first wife , Sonya' s mother , an d Yelen a Andreyevna . Imagin e yoursel f with a young and beautiful wif e in the company of two men who are trying to tak e he r awa y fro m you . Bot h ar e in lov e wit h Yelen a an d bot h quit e openly despise the Professor. He sees it all, sees Astrov's attempts at wooing her, and this must be the reason why, from the outset, he abhors the doctor. It is not that he is right to insult Dr Astrov, but the point is that Serebryakov is unhappy in his own way, and has his own subjective truth. Everything is important in Chekhov's characters: what makes them alike - an d different ; thei r past , an d thei r destinies , and th e subtles t nuance s of feelings. Th e ver y titl e of the play , th e notio n o f 'Uncle Vanya ' is itself a nuance. This is very difficult t o explain to a foreigner becaus e Uncle Vanya embodies th e national sensibilitie s o f an average Russia n intellectual : incapable of great deeds; the man who shoots twice - and misses, misses his revenge. Bu t o n the othe r hand , h e is an extremely conscientiou s man , lonely, loving, lovable and dear, in a word - Uncle Vanya. In spit e o f all the differences betwee n Vany a an d Astrov , the y hav e common destinie s an d a commo n misfortune : tha t o f failin g t o fulfi l themselves, although one wouldn't sa y this when seeing Astrov for th e first time. Failure in self-fulfilment o r in realising aspirations, whether in private life or in a professional career , was as much a tragedy last century, in 1897, as it is now.5 In the quarrel with the Professor an d when he is at the height of hi s outburst , Vany a crie s tha t h e 'could becom e a Schopenhauer , a Dostoyevsky'. On e know s tha t thi s i s not true . H e could hav e becom e someone else , bu t h e didn't . H e coul d hav e ha d a family, a loving wife , children but , lik e Astrov, he has not. Both have grim futures: it seems just as likely that Uncle Vanya will calm down as that Astrov will drink himself to death i n the absence of love, in the hopeless humdrum drearines s o f his existence. In fact, everyone in this play is a loser. Not one has good luck in life. And the on e thing suc h differen t wome n a s Yelena, 'th e splendi d woman' , an d Sonya, 'the unattractive woman', have in common is bad luck. Unfortunate women, lik e Sonya , hav e alway s bee n abundan t i n Russia. I n no other country is the loneliness o f a woman expressed s o painfully. Nowher e else 98 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Notes from a director: Uncle Vanya

does a woman have to 'be ' everything in a large house, and in a ridiculous and disunited family have to be the mother and the sister, to exhaust herself by har d wor k becaus e ther e ar e n o prospect s fo r lov e an d persona l fulfilment. I t i s al l th e mor e remarkable , therefore , tha t i n he r situatio n Sonya manages to preserve the purity and beauty of her soul. As a character , Sony a ha s alway s bee n love d b y actresses . Ther e i s a clarity abou t Sony a whic h i s absen t fro m th e othe r characters , bu t ther e have bee n man y faile d performance s i n playin g he r part . Wit h Yelena' s character i t is different: sh e is a mysterious woman, an d much depends on the actress who plays this part. In her performance, sh e has to explain an d justify th e stor m o f passion s whic h break s ou t aroun d her . I f othe r characters' fascinatio n wit h he r has to be 'imitated' , an d i f the men i n the audience don't share these feelings, then the play will not work. The actress must no t jus t b e beautifu l an d feminine , bu t 'splendid' . Sh e mus t arous e desire, turn heads. But even this is insufficient. Ever y heroine i n Chekhov' s play s ha s some mystery. The mystery o f Yelena is - sh e is profoundly unhappy . Sh e is not what he r admirers , worshippers , thin k sh e i s when the y ar e caugh t u p i n their frustration: sh e is not a femme fatale, or 'a mermaid'. She is alive and decent, an d life is hard on her. It is hard to put up with the situation when she is with he r husban d an d th e men ar e strugglin g ove r her . It is hard t o conceal her growing passion for Astrov , for whom , fro m th e moment they meet, sh e ha s bee n burnin g wit h desir e an d love . But he r breeding , stric t morals, the presence of her husband, her own conscience and reticence, and that wretche d Uncl e Vany a wh o chase s he r everywhere , o r Sony a wh o herself i s in love with Astrov - al l this keeps Astrov an d Yelena apart , an d their paths will never again cross . . . Much mor e coul d b e sai d abou t thi s play , abou t eac h o f it s character s and scenes . The longe r on e lives , the mor e ther e i s to say . The pla y pull s you i n irresistibly . An d i n spit e o f al l th e turbulenc e o f th e action , al l the squabbles an d rebellions, and the hopelessness o f this dreary everyday life, there is cajoling poetry in this play. This is the poetry of feelings and words, of nature and lifestyle, which grows out of the simplest things. Perhaps i n no othe r pla y o f Chekhov' s hav e I heard suc h mournful an d touching musi c o f departure , expresse d i n jus t on e word : 'Left' . (O r 'Gone'.)6 Th e Serebryakov s wil l exit , th e bell s wil l jingl e an d Astro v wil l say: 'Left' . Th e nanny , Marina, wil l enter , followed b y Sonya: 'Left' . An d the ol d Mama n wil l echo : 'Left'. Thi s refrai n alternate s i n perfect rhyth m with simpl e action s an d exchange s o f neutra l phrases . The n Astro v wil l leave ('Left' , 'Left ' . . .) - an d thes e peopl e wil l remai n t o liv e ou t thei r days. 99 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

LEONID HEIFET Z

The twentiet h centur y i s runnin g out . Th e Russia n poe t Osi p Mandelshtam calle d thi s centur y 'th e wolf-hound' . An d I would cal l it the age of Chekhov . Not o f Hitler o r Mussolini, o f Stali n o r Chairma n Mao , o f Churchill o r of Roosevelt. I t is more likel y tha t thi s i s the ag e o f Charlie Chaplin an d of Einstein , bu t most o f all , o f Chekhov . Th e age of hi s triumph, hi s bloodles s victory . Ver y soo n (wit h onl y a n instan t i n eternity before th e ne w millenniu m i s upon us ) w e ma y b e plunge d int o a n abyss. This evil , blood-thirsty , disgustin g centur y will laps e int o th e abyss , to the roar o f missiles , th e rattling o f assaul t weapon s an d the groans o f th e victims o f war. Bu t it will g o dow n i n history a s th e ag e o f Uncle Vanya' s bitter revelatio n an d great love , alon g wit h Chekhov' s warnin g agains t making false , graven , images . Biblica l truth s transcen d an d triump h ove r centuries. And Chekho v has triumphed too . I would b e curious to know whethe r a young director i n the next century , reading Sonya' s monologue, will feel fury ? NOTES 1 Excerpt s from this diary were published in Teatr, 3 , 1978, pp. 85-94 . 2 N . F. Belchikov an d others, eds., Anton Chekhov, Polnoe sobranie, sochinenii i pisem v 301 totnakh, Moscow , 1974-83 , (Anton Chekhov, Collected Works and Letters in 30 volumes, Moscow, 1974-83) . From Works, vol. xin, p . 107. All subsequent - Russian - quotations from Chekho v come from thi s edition of the Collected Works and Letters. 3 Heifet z i s here referrin g t o such Imperia l Theatre s a s the Mosco w Bolsho i Theatre o r th e Mal y Theatre , in fact t o al l theatre s whic h wer e no t privatel y owned or/and private or subscription theatres like the MAT, or Korsh's Theatre where The Bear was premiered. 4 Stanislavksy' s famou s an d much-quote d remar k tha t 'ther e ar e no smal l parts, only small actors' seems relevant here. 5 189 7 was the year of publication of Uncle Vanya. 6 Ofte n translate d int o Englis h a s 'Gone' . Ther e i s ambivalence an d dualit y in either word, whether in Russian or English, and different n o matter whether it is 'Gone' or 'Left'. Ye t each carries the same finality.

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

9 TREVOR NUN N

Notes fro m a director: Three Sisters

Anything tha t I have t o sa y abou t Chekho v fro m a director' s perspectiv e amounts to a testament to his extraordinary durability , the sheer toughness of the material an d how well made his plays are . In fact, th e experiences I have to relate are full o f compromise a t every level and thus quite opposite to any idealistic or ideological approach . What shines through my memory of th e experienc e i s th e pla y - th e indestructibilit y o f th e pla y almos t beyond ruination. The story I have to tell more or less proves this. I wanted the Royal Shakespeare Company both for political reasons and reasons proceedin g fro m m y ow n socia l convictions , t o moun t a kind o f small-scale tourin g operation , whic h would enabl e th e compan y 't o reac h the parts o f the country that othe r beer s could no t reach'. 1 I wanted t o go to place s wher e ther e wer e n o existin g theatr e buildings , o r wher e ther e was a n absenc e o f a theatre-going habi t o r tradition . B y definition, there fore, places that would seem to have been 'written off fo r theatre. I wanted thi s becaus e it was a time (1979 ) whe n I was trying to get the Arts Council to think differently about the RSC's approach to touring, and to persuade them to invest money in us taking the entire Stratford operatio n for a n extended period to Newcastle. I wanted to replicate the approach of the Berline r Ensemble , whic h ha d take n ever y aspec t o f thei r repertoir e operation t o differen t area s i n Eas t German y fo r a perio d o f tim e - a residency, rathe r tha n ou r tourin g syste m o f takin g on e productio n fleet ingly t o a venu e fo r a wee k a t a time . Bu t I realise d tha t i f I wo n tha t argument wit h th e Art s Council , I had to b e abl e t o offe r a concomitan t form of touring to create a balance. That balanc e would bes t be achieved by creating a small-scale operatio n which by definition woul d present a kind of 'roug h theatre': 2 we would be taking ou r ow n stag e platfor m an d lightin g towers , an d goin g t o place s such as social centres, community halls , church halls , town squares . I was open to any and every suggestion abou t where the company might go, but it was axiomatic that our presentations would be 'unsophisticated'.

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

TREVOR NUN N

Finally, the new endeavour was approved by the Arts Council. As a result I thought I would have to get somebody of a very high theatrical profile t o be responsibl e fo r th e tour , otherwis e i t woul d happe n mor e o r les s anonymously an d unnoticed. The person I turned t o was the leading acto r with whom I had been working for the previous two years, Ian McKellen. I suggested to Ian that he should use and adapt the principles of The Actors' Company,3 wit h whic h h e ha d bee n involve d a s a founde r member , an d build up a company of artists for whom he would be ultimately responsible. I aske d hi m t o b e involve d i n pla y selection , choosin g an d plannin g th e repertoire along with the tour manager, and advised him to think o f this as a semi-autonomous operation . Ian agreed. Then, a couple of months later, he telephone d m e t o say , 'I'v e forme d a group, an d accordin g t o Actors ' Company principles, we have debated who we most want to direct us and now, representing the Company, I am saying that w e want you.' Now that was no t quit e th e poin t - I mean th e ide a o f Ia n organisin g th e tou r wa s that he shoul d tak e responsibilit y fo r i t an d I woul d no t otherwis e b e involved. Anyway, his phone calls persisted and Ian said that it would make all the difference i f I would validate the project b y agreeing to direct. I understood his thinking, much though I resisted him; by then it was established that he was going to present a production o f Twelfth Night, and was urging me to do a productio n o f The Seagull. From the n on , thi s stor y i s increasingl y about manageria l pragmatism . I though t abou t th e actor s Ia n ha d assembled. I understood, of course, that he must have assembled them with some sense that The Seagull would b e an appropriate pla y for them . But I believed tha t i t di d no t provid e a balanc e t o th e castin g requirement s o f Twelfth Night. I could se e that ther e was great valu e in doing a Chekhov; actors kno w tha t workin g o n a Chekhov pla y is likely t o b e a democrati c experience an d tha t everybod y i s required t o provid e a n equa l amoun t o f contribution and initiative. The Chekhov play becomes 'company-forming ' material. Bu t I assure you , an d I must b e honest abou t this , my choice of Chekhov wa s hard-nosed an d practical . I could se e the compan y valu e of doing a Chekhov play, but I concluded the y were talking about th e wrong one. I decided to study the acting company that had been put together, and see which Chekhov play offered bette r casting opportunities. The cart was most emphatically before the horse. I had seen Three Sisters in a very highly regarded production directe d by Dr Jonathan Miller. 4 I think I had als o seen a television version which was not particularl y distinguishe d an d I had see n a productio n a t th e Worl d Theatre Seaso n tha t struc k m e as bein g over emphatic, heavy-hande d an d self-indulgently slow . I had few preconceptions abou t the play. I knew that

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Notes from a director: Three Sisters what Jonathan ha d done , according t o critica l authority , ha d bee n t o fre e the play of a number o f preconceptions, bu t I can't sa y I knew what those preconceptions ha d been . I rea d th e pla y i n a n immediatel y availabl e translation b y Richard Cottrell, 5 with whom I'd bee n at university. I found it a ver y accessibl e translatio n wit h ver y clea r intentions , bu t t o som e extent i t lacked anythin g very idiomatic. It was careful, clear , clean. More than a literal translation , i t ha d insigh t bu t n o grea t sens e o f place o r th e Russian idiom. It occurred to me that i t would b e very good to work with such a translation s o that somethin g more richly idiomatic could b e found during the rehearsal process , rather tha n to work with something minutely instructed by the translator from the word go. So, I put i t t o Ia n that i n fact w e shoul d thin k abou t Three Sisters. Ia n was happy to give me free rei n just so long as I did something; it was not a case that I had t o argu e i n an y great detail . S o by chance, rathe r tha n b y design, I found mysel f involved in a production o f Three Sisters an d foun d myself more or less inheriting a cast. I suspect that this is a far cry from th e circumstances i n whic h mos t director s woul d agre e t o proceed , whethe r Stanislavsky,6 Tovstonogov 7 or Lyubimov,8 or contemporary director s who have learned from the Russian tradition. Such a contemporary director, like Max Stafford-Clark, 9 would , I am sure , neve r contemplat e proceedin g i n this way. I was fortunate tha t the group of people who had been assembled were all immensely intelligent, and brought with them no amour propre, or the kin d o f personalit y i n constan t nee d o f bein g stroked . The y wer e immediately an d passionately interested an d engaged with their characters. It was really only as a second wave of perception that I began to understand that I had presented myself with a very considerable conundrum. The circumstanc e o f ou r travellin g theatr e necessitate d th e audienc e being seate d o n thre e sides . Fo r space s wher e ther e wa s n o existin g auditorium o r rake d seating , w e ha d t o erec t a platfor m stage . S o I was reading a pla y tha t ha s th e specifi c requirement s o f rooms , door s an d elements o f furniture tha t woul d see m to b e integral an d then, o f course, I went through a period of panic. I feared that either the tour had to be rescheduled so we would go only to existing theatres, and that a full-scale desig n for the play could be made, or that w e woul d hav e t o reconside r an d pla n a differen t play . Bu t the n I started t o thin k o f Three Sisters as a poetic play, a s a play o f heightene d language an d poeti c ideas . I n a sense , I starte d t o thin k o f i t i n Shake spearean terms. The seventeenth-century bare stage and back wall provided actors wit h th e capabilit y o f enterin g an d leavin g a n uncluttere d environ ment, the specificity and detail of which could be created through language. I found tha t thi s notio n entirel y release d m e from th e panic , an d a s all of 103 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

TREVOR NUN N

the clutte r an d furnitur e an d bric-a-bra c o f nineteenth-centur y socia l lif e disappeared ou t o f m y mind , s o a lo t o f th e accretion s o f tha t theatr e tradition disappeared . I suppose i n my own defenc e I should ad d tha t thi s was befor e Pete r Brook' s brav e stag e adaptatio n o f The Cherry Orchard which I think o f a s the best , th e mos t affectin g productio n o f a Chekho v play that I have seen.10 It wa s clea r t o m e tha t becaus e I wa s plannin g a mixtur e o f a 'poo r theatre'11 an d 'roug h theatre ' relationshi p betwee n th e pla y an d th e audience, i t wa s vita l tha t everythin g b e suggested and tha t th e deman d should b e mad e o n th e spectators ' collectiv e imaginatio n t o provid e whatever scenicall y wa s missing. For example, I had n o problem wit h th e demand fo r ther e t o b e a larg e numbe r o f peopl e a t a lunc h party , necessitating a huge table and the need to solve the method of its arrival, as well a s an y ensuin g sightlin e restrictions . A 'table ' coul d b e mad e b y a group o f actors using only chairs, forks an d napkins. What wa s important was that they should be able to crystallise minute behavioural details at this lunch party , s o everything o f thei r characters ' physica l live s coul d b e selected t o provid e a recognisabl e an d convincin g clarity , an d coul d b e choreographed t o make each textual an d comedi c focus. I discovered tha t the absence of the furniture als o made the scene intensely comic; I enjoyed doing thos e ver y thing s tha t woul d hav e bee n impossibl e wit h th e table . That is not the same as saying we were no longer in a naturalistic play, but that instead we were presenting a heightened poetical experience. The music for th e production provide d a similar cas e in point. It would have bee n contradictor y i n thi s 'poor ' theatr e environmen t t o emplo y a sound departmen t wit h state-of-the-ar t electroni c amplifier s reproducin g large-scale instrumenta l musi c cues . I t wa s extremel y releasin g t o kno w that I had t o find an acto r wh o coul d pla y the piano, a n acto r wh o coul d play th e guitar , a n acto r wh o coul d pla y th e violi n an d tha t th e all important musi c o f th e productio n woul d com e onl y fro m thos e sources . This decisio n provide d th e productio n wit h a n unshakeabl e authenticity . The music , whic h becam e fundamentall y importan t t o th e experienc e o f Chekhov's play , wa s organic . Ther e wa s n o 'background ' score , nothin g was overlai d o r forced ; instea d th e actor s contribute d wha t the y could , which resulted in something touching and irreducible. I suppose how we approached the incident of the spinning top, the child's toy give n t o Irin a a t th e lunc h party , demonstrate s m y poin t bette r tha n anything. Once I had banishe d the tapedeck a s the provider o f music cues, it becam e imperative t o banis h it for everything . The real spinnin g top we used mad e a perfectl y acceptabl e an d perfectl y audibl e whirrin g musica l sound whe n i t wa s pumpe d up . Bu t i t wa s no t haunting ; i t wa s no t 104 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Notes from a director: Three Sisters memorable; it was not poetic; and s o one day I experimented wit h a silent spinning top and asked the actors to provide the sound. Something muc h mor e extraordinar y and , I felt , mor e organi c wa s expressed tha n b y the rea l sound . In rehearsal, I developed th e possibilit y by asking each character t o make their wish - i n the spirit o f the question : 'What woul d your birthda y wis h be?' . The n I aske d eac h o f the m t o concentrate o n tha t wish , an d transfor m i t int o a singl e an d sustaine d sound. When eventually w e put al l those singl e sounds together, we foun d that ther e wa s an inexplicable mysteriou s cadenc e compose d o f low notes and high notes, sighing notes, yearning notes, impatient an d frustrated an d discordant notes . S o th e spinnin g top , surrounde d b y everybod y a t th e lunch party , mad e thi s unplaceable , indefinabl e hauntin g sound . S o wha t we i n th e audienc e wer e hearing , wa s wha t th e character s wer e hearing , their inne r thought s abou t thei r futur e - thei r imagination s capture d a t a moment in time. I decide d no t t o interrogat e th e actor s abou t thes e particula r inne r thoughts bu t i t i s probable tha t th e girl s wer e communicatin g a yearnin g for Moscow in one way or another. However, the yearnings that each of the characters in that boisterou s household has, proceeding from unhappiness , experience o r discontent , ar e comple x an d intrinsicall y interrelate d t o th e presence o f the other characters , s o the exercise (an d the resultant expres sion of it in the production) provided them with a moment of fusion, a time of complete interconnection. The fac t tha t I had remove d everythin g o f th e traditiona l stagin g tool s revealed fo r u s excitin g answers , mor e poeti c an d mor e integra l answer s than might otherwise have been the case. At the very beginning of the play, I kne w tha t i t wa s necessar y t o hav e th e rea l soun d o f a piano an d tha t Tusenbach shoul d actuall y pla y th e piano ; we shoul d se e him playin g th e piano; it was vital t o indicate th e Baron's breedin g an d sophistication , hi s certainty tha t indee d h e coul d provid e i n tha t household , i n tha t town , what nobod y els e ther e coul d provide . S o th e presenc e o f a rea l pian o (which of course provides the image of a locked piano) was very important. Additionally, I needed somethin g in the bare white spac e which would say 'we ar e i n a house, indoors'; s o I chose on e ver y large, very male, leathe r armchair. Quite simply we agreed, 'That is father's chair. ' This solitar y armchai r wa s ofte n occupie d b y al l thre e sister s together . They clustered round it; there was a sort of seniority about who was on the seat, wh o o n th e arm . Becaus e i t wa s th e onl y furnitur e i n th e roo m an d because th e sister s kne w it s significance , it s presenc e ha d nothin g t o d o with answerin g th e usua l naturalisti c question : 'ho w i s th e roo m furn ished?'. Rather , i t ha d th e identit y o f anothe r character , a permanen t 105 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

TREVOR NUN N

reminder o f loss, of change, an anchor that restrained the sisters and which they could not drag in any direction. It is entirely possible that some people in the audience may have seen the whole range of significance i n our single chair; man y woul d not , bu t wha t woul d hav e bee n unmissabl e wa s th e connection that each of the three sisters had to that inanimate object and its history. Two kinds of rehearsal work kept pace with each other. I mentioned that we worked improvisationally, bu t not exclusively so. It was important tha t we studie d th e textual material , s o we analyse d togethe r - collectivel y we took every utterance i n the play apart, an d a s a group we identified al l the possibilities of textual meaning at each interrelated moment. We broke the play dow n int o units , i n th e conventiona l Stanislavskia n way . The analy tical proces s wa s ver y exhausting. I think w e spen t mor e tha n tw o week s reading and talking, and very occasionally turning our insights into action. But then in the evenings - w e did our situational an d individual improvisation work. I foun d i t immensel y helpfu l tha t th e textua l an d improvisationa l disciplines more or less kept pace with each other, and once we felt we had enough to go on, the middle period of rehearsal was exhilarating. We were not decision-making ; possibilities wer e offering themselve s an d bein g lived through. I was able to allow improvised scene s to run o n for longe r than I normally would because the company had so much background. I also gave the actor s licenc e t o pla y wit h th e tex t whe n the y fel t somethin g mor e idiomatic was necessary. We would then discuss those textual variants an d decide which had been unhelpful, an d which had worked. This proces s le d t o a sens e tha t w e wer e no t dealin g wit h a learned o r received text , a tex t t o b e recited ; w e wer e abl e t o she d th e literar y constraints whic h traditionall y attac h t o a pla y tha t ha s bee n 'previousl y written down' . Instead, ther e wa s a sense that th e play was developing its own rhythms an d movements, because to some extent it was being written as it was being created in the moment. I am in danger of exaggeration here. This 'creative' textual process didn't seek to change Chekhov's content, but to discover an idiom. The actors reported tha t they were liberated b y being in an empty space and involved in making their improvised choreography; but simultaneously working i n th e minutes t analytica l detail , bot h befor e an d afte r th e improvised event , le d t o unfettere d moment s o f emotiona l exchange . S o rehearsals reached a point of imaginative 'lift-off . As for my input as director, I wish I could sa y that I had 'conducted ' the play bu t I thin k tha t woul d sugges t a controlle d overview . I wa s to o concerned abou t ho w th e smalles t influenc e o f though t o r gestur e coul d 106 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Notes from a director: Three Sisters change meaning, and so change what we had arrived at through consensus. Therefore, I would say I thought of myself as receiving more than initiating what was happening in rehearsal. Well, let's say it was two-way traffic . The band music at the end was of course taped. This was the only point in th e productio n wher e somethin g occurre d on-stag e tha t di d no t gro w organically fro m th e wor k o r inventio n o f th e company . W e talke d a t length abou t ho w w e might b e able t o achiev e th e passin g ban d b y othe r impressionistic means, but no satisfactory solutio n emerged. John Napier's 12 work was very important. I have talked abou t a 'rough ' theatre productio n bu t actuall y th e environmen t Joh n gav e us , a whit e expanse, was a purifying environment . It enabled an audience to really see in clear images, as it were against a photographer's cloth, to see the smallest details o f behaviour . Bu t i t als o create d a disciplin e whic h expose d whatever was extraneous as well. Our white environment required unusual economy fro m th e actor s an d a stric t discipline , s o th e productio n wen t through a furthe r stag e o f refinin g th e poeti c sparenes s whe n th e se t arrived. Abov e an d behin d th e character s wa s a faded 'pentimento ' icon , barely visibl e o n the whit e wall , whic h cam e t o hav e a different meanin g for eac h o f them : regre t tha t traditio n wa s fading ; pleasur e o r convictio n that i t mus t continu e t o fade ; certaint y tha t th e futur e woul d li e i n something else . The fain t externa l hin t als o gav e us a sense o f th e sor t of town that the Prozorovs lived in. It was not so much an icon as a memory of an icon. Curiously, Three Sisters is not a play I would want to do again. I had an indelible experience, even though I feel s o much could s o easily have gone wrong i n suc h unusua l an d primitiv e circumstances . S o much t o d o wit h the theatre concerns elements of chemistry an d good fortune; mystica l an d indefinable element s whic h ar e quit e intangibl e ca n tur n out , lik e 'th e force',13 t o be with you. They were overwhelmingly wit h me in this case. I felt deeply grateful fo r the experience and I wouldn't have the hubris to say I migh t d o bette r wit h th e pla y i n a differen t version , o r a t a secon d attempt. I hope to do another Chekhov play one day soon. At present, I'm terribly disappointed becaus e I have just been beaten to the punch: for a number of years I hav e bee n plannin g t o d o a productio n o f The Wood-Demon largely I suppose becaus e I want t o sho w that The Wood-Demon i s not a failed attemp t a t Uncle Vanya - a well-worn critical misapprehension bot h of thi s pla y and , mor e fundamentally , o f ho w writer s write . I t i s s o clear that wit h The Wood-Demon Chekho v wa s makin g a pla y tha t wa s fundamentally optimisti c - a heavily challenge d optimis m - bu t a funda mentally forward-lookin g an d positive accoun t o f a n assortmen t o f young 107 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

TREVOR NUN N

lives. Extraordinarily youthfu l i n tone, th e play i s about no t succumbin g t o life, bu t abou t survivin g crisis . It ha s a las t ac t wher e th e youn g peopl e ar e in th e gri p o f regre t an d guil t bu t the y com e throug h i t i n thei r separat e ways an d the y g o on . Som e writer s an d reviewer s wit h twenty-twent y hindsight hav e suggeste d tha t becaus e Chekho v reuse d som e o f thi s narrative materia l t o writ e a very differen t pla y a t th e en d o f hi s career , h e had bee n strugglin g t o writ e Uncle Vanya bu t wa s i n som e wa y to o callo w or inexperienced t o get it right. This is nonsense. My muc h admire d colleague , Richar d Nelson, 14 agree d t o translat e th e play. He di d a wonderfully idiomati c an d speakabl e jo b o n it , bu t w e bot h remained worrie d abou t th e structur e o f th e narrative . Richard' s respons e was t o as k m e wha t w e woul d d o i f w e wer e i n th e film busines s an d ha d encountered suc h structura l problems ? 'Le t m e kee p al l Chekhov' s mate rial', h e urge d 'bu t le t m e writ e th e film script. ' Wonderfu l idea . O f cours e what Richar d fashione d wa s a totall y 'stageable ' film script, 15 an d sinc e The Wood-Demon i s almos t neve r done , I thought ther e woul d no t b e to o much critica l distres s an d academi c complain t i f I presente d Richard' s 'version'. S o I wa s plannin g t o d o thi s versio n her e a t th e Cotteslo e bu t I have jus t hear d tha t a compan y unknow n t o m e i s preparing a productio n of The Wood-Demon ove r th e rive r a t th e Playhous e Theatre. 16 Th e difficulty i s tha t i f the y d o i t ver y well , the n clearl y i t woul d b e a ba d ide a for anothe r productio n t o com e alon g i n quic k succession , precisel y because i t i s suc h a rarity . Bu t Catc h 22 , if the y d o no t d o i t well , opinio n will b e influenced agains t anothe r productio n o f a n unsuccessful apprentic e piece. We ar e doin g a ne w productio n o f The Cherry Orchard a t th e Roya l National Theatr e i n Septembe r 2000 , i n th e Lyttelto n Theatre . Afte r th e millennium celebrations , I fee l tha t I wan t t o direc t a smal l theatr e production o f The Cherry Orchard. Chekho v i s 'th e othe r grea t writer ' Shakespeare an d Chekhov . An d lik e Shakespeare , Chekho v change s i n meaning an d relevanc e fro m generatio n t o generation . N o productio n i s ever definitive . Thes e ar e play s tha t on e coul d wor k o n fo r th e whol e o f one's life an d neve r exhaust them .

NOTES This chapter is taken from a n interview with the editors a t the Royal Nationa l Theatre, London, June 1997. 1 Thi s i s a colloquia l referenc e t o a ver y popula r Heineke n lage r televisio n advertisement from th e late 1970 s which sol d Heineken a s a beer that 'reache s the parts that other beers cannot reach'. 108 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Notes from a director: Three Sisters 2 Se e chapte r entitle d 'Th e Roug h Theatre ' i n Pete r Brook , The Empty Space, Harmondsworth, England, 1984 , pp. 73-100. (First published London, 1968.) 3 Th e Actors' Company was created in 197 2 with the intention o f giving back to actors som e o f th e creativ e an d artisti c contro l the y ha d los t t o directors , b y inviting directors to work wit h them (instea d o f vice versa), and als o partly to try an d compensat e fo r th e declin e o f th e repertor y system . Se e chapter 1 1 in this volume. 4 Three Sisters directe d b y Jonathan Mille r a t th e Cambridg e Theatre , London , 1976. 5 Three Sisters directe d b y Trevor Nun n opene d a t th e RSC' s Th e Othe r Place , Stratford-upon-Avon, o n 2 9 Septembe r 1979 , befor e touring . Th e compan y consisted o f himsel f a s director, Richar d Cottrel l a s translator, John Napie r a s designer an d a cast whic h included : Timoth y Spal l a s Andrey; Susa n Tracy as Natasha; Janet Dale as Olga; Suzanne Bertish as Masha; Emily Richard as Irina and Edward Petherbridge as Vershinin. See chapter 1 1 in this volume. 6 Konstanti n Stanislavsk y (1863-1938) . Co-founde r wit h Vladimir Nemirovich Danchenko o f th e (private ) Mosco w Ar t Theatre . Stanislavsk y wa s th e firs t director (a t th e Mosco w Ar t Theatre ) o f Seagull, Uncle Vanya, Three Sisters, The Cherry Orchard and Ivanov. H e was also the first performe r o f the leading parts o f Trigori n (The Seagull, 1896) ; Astro v (Uncle Vanya, 1899), Vershinin (Three Sisters, 1901); an d Gaye v (The Cherry Orchard, 1904). Stanislavsky' s 'System' o f actin g technique s - firs t misinterprete d the n reinterprete d i n America, a s 'Th e Method ' - forme d bot h th e firs t coheren t analysi s o f actin g techniques and (ofte n mistakenly ) th e metho d o f approachin g 'naturalistic ' plays. Nemirovich-Danchenk o wa s a mor e accurat e interprete r o f Chekhov' s plays, and Chekhov's unhappiness with Stanislavsky's interpretation of his plays is no w legendary , an d wel l documente d i n severa l collection s o f Chekhov' s letters. See Bibliography an d Jean Benedetti's The Moscow Art Theatre Letters, and specificall y Edwar d Brau n i n chapte r 5 o f The Director and the Stage, London, 1982. See also chapters 3, 12, 14 and 15 in this volume. 7 Georg i Tovstonogov, 1915-89 . Born in Tbilisi, capital o f what was to becom e the Sovie t Republi c o f Georgia , Tovstonogo v graduate d i n 193 8 fro m GITI S (The Sovie t Stat e Theatr e School) . H e becam e Artisti c Directo r o f th e Gork y Theatre, Leningrad . Amongst man y othe r innovator y productions , hi s production o f Three Sisters in 196 5 coincide d wit h th e post-Stalinis t 'Thaw' . Hi s 'credo' ma y b e summarise d a s 'th e eliminatio n o f wha t i s possibl e bu t no t essential'. Fo r furthe r information , se e als o a Frenc h versio n o f hi s auto biography, Gueorgui Tovstonogov: Quarante ans de tnise en scene, Moscow, 1976; Ver a Gottlieb , Chekhov in Performance in Russia and Soviet Russia, Cambridge, 1984 ; Laurence Senelick's The Chekhov Theatre: A Century of the Plays in Performance, Cambridge , 1997 ; an d se e i n thi s volume , chapter s 1 4 and 15. 8 Yur i Lyubimov (1917 - ) was Artistic Director o f the radical an d controversia l Taganka Theatre, Moscow - 'th e hub of artistic dissent'. Lyubimov's 'Brechtian' approach t o Chekhov' s plays , an d i n particula r t o hi s productio n o f Three Sisters, 1981, has made him, with Tovstonogov , Efro s an d Heifetz , on e o f th e most radical of Russian interpreters of Chekhov on the Russian stage. Described by some a s 'the theatrica l conscienc e o f his nation', an d b y others viewed a s a 109 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

TREVOR NUN N

'deserter', Lyubimo v ha d hi s Sovie t passpor t withdraw n whil e workin g i n London in 198 4 o n his production o f Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment at The Lyric , Hammersmith . Lyubimov' s production s ar e notabl e fo r hi s us e of non-naturalistic techniques. See chapters 14 and 15 in this volume. 9 Ma x Stafford-Clar k (bor n 1941 ) wa s Artisti c Directo r o f th e Roya l Cour t Theatre, London , fro m 1979-93 , a n d K currentl y Artisti c Directo r o f th e company Ou t o f Joint , whic h h e founde d i n 1993 . Renowne d bot h fo r hi s productions o f many new plays - b y Caryl Churchill, Timberlake Wertenbaker, and other s - h e i s als o a majo r classica l director . Hi s mos t recen t Chekho v production wa s hi s 199 6 Three Sisters at th e Lyri c Theatre , Hammersmith , London. 10 The Cherry Orchard, or i n Brook' s French translation , La Cerisaie, opene d a t Les Bouffes d u Nord , Brook' s Pari s theatre, i n Ma y 1981 , designed b y Chloe Obolensky. See chapters 12 and 14 in this volume. 11 'Poo r theatre ' wa s a ter m originall y coine d b y th e Polis h directo r Jerz y Grotowski, i n his boo k Towards a Poor Theatre, ed. Eugenio Barba , London , 1976, p. 19 . (First published in Denmark, 1968. ) 12 Joh n Napier is a renowned scenographer who has worked with Trevor Nunn on several productions . Hi s design s includ e Nicholas Nickleby, Les Miserables, Miss Saigon, Cats and Starlight Express. 13 'Ma y the Force be with you' was said by the character Ben Obi-Wan Kenobi to Luke Skywalker in the feature fil m Star Wars (1977) directed by George Lucas, designating the transmission of supernatural powers. 14 Th e playwright, Richar d Nelson , whose work include s Sensibilities and Sense; Two Shakespearean Actors; Some Americans Abroad, and Misha's Party with the Russia n playwrigh t Alexande r Gelma n fo r th e Roya l Shakespear e Theatr e Company and The Moscow Art Theatre. 15 Se e chapters 4 and 13 in this volume. 16 Directe d b y Anthony Clar k a t The Playhouse Theatre in London's West End in June 1997.

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

IO EDWARD BRAU N

The Cherry Orchard

In 1963 , th e Marxis t criti c an d philosophe r Geor g Lukac s resume d hi s critique of Brecht's epic theatre, questioning its necessity in the depiction of social change: Even without alienatio n effects, writer s have succeeded not just in surprisin g the audience , bu t i n movin g the m profoundl y b y dramatizin g th e contra dictions of a given social order . . . [Chekhov's] plays are built on the conflict between th e subjectiv e intention s o f hi s character s an d thei r objectiv e tendencies an d significance . Thi s constantl y create s a divide d impressio n i n the minds of the audience. On the one hand, they understand th e characters' feelings an d ca n eve n sympathiz e wit h them . A t th e sam e time , the y ar e forced int o a n intense experienc e o f the tragic, tragi-comic o r comic conflic t between these subjective feelings and the objective social reality.1

Whether the objective social reality is apparent as a determining factor in all o f Chekhov' s majo r play s i s debatable . Certainly , i n hi s earl y dram a Platonov (as it is now known) the chaotic action serves to convey a picture of the Russian landowning gentry in terminal decline. 2 Similarly, in his next play th e characte r o f Ivano v embodie s th e sens e o f worthlessnes s an d disillusionment tha t paralysed th e educated classes when the high hopes of liberal refor m an d modernisatio n engendere d b y the emancipatio n o f th e serfs wer e extinguishe d b y th e accessio n i n 188 1 o f th e autocrati c Tsa r Alexander II I afte r th e assassinatio n o f hi s mor e progressiv e fathe r Alex ander II . However, b y comparison wit h thes e earl y work s relativel y littl e indication o f th e broade r socia l contex t i s give n i n th e thre e play s tha t followed. I t i s true tha t i n Uncle Vanya Astrov's hopeles s struggl e agains t rural backwardness mirrors Chekhov's own experience as a landowner an d unpaid country doctor a t his Melikhovo estate, but in The Seagull the only agrarian problem seems to be the availability o f carriage horses for a drive into tow n a t harves t time . Similarly , i n Three Sisters, th e pervasiv e atmo sphere is one of provincial stagnation with little prospect of change, though there is an element of class conflict implici t in the vulgar Natasha's ruthless

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

EDWARD BRAU N

appropriation o f th e hous e fro m he r sociall y superio r sisters-in-la w an d their demoralised brother. However, it is not until The Cherry Orchard that the process of social change becomes the central concern, resulting in a text that i n originalit y o f for m an d complexit y o f subjec t matte r wen t fa r beyond his earlier plays. The declin e o f th e lande d gentr y wa s a crucia l proble m i n nineteenth century Russia. By 1859 one-third o f the estates and two-thirds of the serfs belonging to landowners wer e mortgaged t o the stat e o r to private banks. The Emancipation Ac t of 1 8 61 was designed to address this crisis through the redemption payment s tha t the peasants were to make for th e land tha t their forme r master s chos e t o transfe r t o them , bu t i n consequenc e th e landowners coul d n o longe r cal l o n th e fre e labour , tool s an d animal s of their former serfs . In the 1870s the gentry still owned one-third of all arable land, but by 1905 its share had decline d to 22 per cent, of which one-thir d was rented to the peasantry. Few landowners ha d an y grasp of agricultur e or accountin g an d man y o f the m spen t lon g period s awa y fro m thei r estates, leavin g thei r affair s i n th e hand s o f corrup t o r incompeten t managers (i n The Cherry Orchard the responsibility i s shared betwee n the twenty-four-year-old adopte d daughte r Vary a an d the accident-prone cler k Yepikhodov). A s a consequenc e o f suc h neglec t numerou s estate s cam e under th e hamme r t o mee t long-accumulate d debts , no t excludin g suc h time-honoured name s as Dolgorukov, Golitsyn, Stroganov and Obolensky . During the reign of Alexander II I emergency fiscal measure s were taken to halt th e erosio n o f thi s clas s o n who m th e entir e economi c an d socia l stability o f th e empir e depended , bu t the y faile d t o preven t vas t tract s o f land passin g into th e hands o f a small minority o f entrepreneurs, man y of them emancipated serfs and their sons, who made light of the unfavourabl e credit term s availabl e fro m th e newl y establishe d Peasants ' Ban k an d readily took to money-making as a way of life. 3 The them e o f bankrup t estate s an d th e ris e o f th e ne w entrepreneuria l class wa s commo n i n post-emancipatio n literatur e an d drama , thoug h i t inspired no works o f lasting significance. I n the case of Chekhov, it is easy to forge t amids t th e mayhe m a t th e en d o f Platonov that th e spendthrif t widow Ann a Petrovn a an d he r idle stepso n fac e evictio n fro m thei r estat e following it s purchas e a t auctio n b y the rapaciou s businessma n Vengero vich. I t wa s a subjec t tha t h e wa s t o retur n t o i n a numbe r o f stories , notably 'Lat e Blossoms' , 'A n Unwanted Victory ' (bot h 1882 ) an d ' A Visit to Friends ' (1898), 4 i n whic h th e pligh t o f th e Lose v famil y closel y resembles that of Ranevskaya and her brother in The Cherry Orchard. Chekhov wa s well placed t o observ e the fecklessness an d incompetenc e of landowners durin g the six years he spent running his own five-hundred -

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

The Cherry Orchard

acre propert y a t Melikhovo , sout h o f Moscow , whic h h e purchase d i n 1892. Durin g tha t tim e h e als o witnesse d th e gradua l declin e o f th e Babkino estate, which belonged to his old friends Alexe i and Maria Kiselev. In December 1897 , Maria wrote to Chekhov: 'At Babkino many things are in a stat e o f collapse , fro m th e owner s t o th e building s . . . th e maste r himself ha s become an old infant, amiabl e but rather demoralised.' 5 Thre e years late r th e estat e wa s finall y sold , it s valu e greatl y enhance d b y th e completion of a railway line from Moscow which made the land a desirable location for dacha s for city-dwellers. Alexei Kiselev became a director o f a bank i n th e neighbourin g tow n - jus t lik e Gaev , an d wit h th e sam e handsome salary of six thousand roubles. Both ' A Visit to Friends' an d The Cherry Orchard owed a great dea l to Chekhov's observatio n o f th e Kiselevs . I n ' A Visit t o Friends ' a Mosco w lawyer, Podgorin , visit s hi s ol d friends , th e dissolut e Serge i Losev an d hi s wife Tatyana , whos e estate i s shortly du e to b e auctione d t o pa y of f thei r debts after year s of neglect. Tatyana fondl y imagine s that i f onl y Podgorin would marr y he r beautifu l siste r Nadezhd a al l woul d b e well , bu t face d with this prospect he makes a hasty departure for Moscow an d permanen t bachelorhood, abandonin g th e Losev s t o thei r fate. 6 Whils t th e stor y anticipates The Cherry Orchard i n a numbe r o f details , i t remain s a n encounter tha t take s plac e i n th e cours e o f a da y an d a nigh t withi n th e immediate famil y circle , stoppin g shor t o f th e sal e o f th e estat e an d th e dispersal of the household. The Cherry Orchard was an undertaking on an altogether different scale . As the Russia n directo r Nikola i Petro v ha s written , 'Chekho v calle d The Cherry Orchard a comedy, but in essence it is a novel, an engrossing novel that embraces the whole period from 186 1 to 1905 and describes the life of people i n Russi a jus t befor e Tsaris m bega n t o collapse.' 7 Nichola s I I was only twenty-six when he came to the throne in 189 4 following hi s father' s sudden death from kidne y failure, an d he possessed neither the will nor the intelligence t o contro l hi s deepl y reactionar y ministers . A s the vas t semi feudal empir e struggle d t o catc h u p wit h Europ e throug h headlon g industrialisation, massiv e foreig n investmen t an d a driv e fo r exports , th e rural econom y wa s cripple d b y heav y taxation , cro p failures , choler a epidemics, rocketin g lan d price s an d a massive increas e i n population. I n 1901 cro p failure s resulte d i n th e wors t outbreak s o f violenc e sinc e th e 1860s, and over the next two years thousands of starving peasants invaded the estates of the gentry in the southern provinces of Poltava, Kharkov and Saratov.8 In The Cherry Orchard the servants ' quarter s hav e bee n occupie d b y vagrants who , it is rumoured, ar e bein g fed b y Varya o n drie d pea s while 113 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

EDWARD BRAU N

Gaev take s hi s siste r t o tow n b y trai n fo r a n extravagan t lunc h an d the n proceeds t o hol d fort h t o th e waiter s o n th e Decaden t movemen t (pp . 302 , 308). 9 Th e referenc e t o thes e interloper s i s typical o f the obliqu e manne r i n which th e action' s wide r significanc e i s conveyed. I n th e cours e o f th e pla y there ar e passing references t o well ove r thirt y character s wh o neve r appea r on-stage, includin g Lopakhin' s bruta l peasan t father , Anya' s aristocrati c great-aunt i n Yaroslavl , th e ric h merchan t Deriganov , Charlotte' s fair ground artist e parents , Ranevskaya' s lat e lawye r husband , Trofimov' s chemist father , an d man y others. 10 Similarly, th e brie f intrusio n o f th e Passer-b y i n Ac t Tw o i s mor e tha n a mere pretex t fo r demonstratin g Ranevskaya' s thoughtles s extravagance ; a s Michael Fray n point s out , a t th e tur n o f the centur y i n Russi a th e wor d fo r passer-by ('prokhozhy' ) implie d someon e trampin g th e countrysid e t o escape fro m priso n o r exil e i n Siberia , an d th e origina l verse s b y Nadso n and Nekraso v fro m whic h h e quote s half-remembere d snatche s hav e a rebellious rin g t o the m tha t ech o Trofimov' s radica l sentiments , an d ar e unlikely t o hav e bee n los t o n a n audienc e o f poetry-lovin g Russians. 11 The Scarlet Woman, Alexe i Tolstoy' s highl y popula r poe m whic h i s declaime d by th e station-maste r durin g th e makeshif t bal l i n Ac t Thre e ha s n o suc h connotation, thoug h i t coul d b e construe d a s a n unwittin g allusio n t o Ranevskaya's eas y virtue . However, a s Firs remarks, th e station-master , th e post-office cler k an d th e other reluctan t down-at-hee l guest s who hav e bee n roped i n wit h th e servant s t o mak e u p th e number s fo r thi s desperat e las t fling ar e n o substitut e fo r th e generals , baron s an d admiral s wh o use d t o come flocking i n th e ol d days . Th e sens e o f humiliatin g socia l declin e wa s exactly conveye d i n th e origina l Mosco w Ar t Theatr e production ; t o quot e Stanislavsky's promp t book : A completel y abortiv e ball . Ver y fe w guests . Hal f o f thos e dancin g don' t know the steps of the quadrille and even fewer i n the grand rond . . . Silence prevails the whole evening so that you'd think they'd come along to a funeral. As soon as a dance end s they al l come to a halt, then dispers e to thei r seat s along the wall. They sit and fan themselves. The moment someone breaks the silence b y runnin g throug h th e roo m o r startin g t o talk , everyon e i s embarrassed an d th e offende r immediatel y feel s guilt y a t causin g th e dis turbance, then the room becomes even more silent and embarrassed. 12 In The Cherry Orchard th e setting s to o ar e mor e significan t i n thei r detail an d mor e clearl y synecdochi c tha n i n an y o f th e earlie r plays . This i s seen mos t clearl y i n Ac t Two , fo r whic h Chekho v spelle d ou t hi s require ments wit h a precisio n tha t wa s los t o n Stanislavsk y an d hi s designe r Simov. The lin e o f telegraph pole s i n the distanc e an d th e large town barel y visible thirtee n mile s awa y o n th e horizon , contrastin g wit h th e long 114 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

The Cherry Orchard abandoned shrin e an d neglecte d tombstones , ar e clearl y intende d t o signif y the encroachmen t o f th e ne w industria l age , thei r meanin g underline d b y the references t o the recently completed railway , conveniently clos e to brin g the ne w bree d o f city-dweller s ou t t o thei r dachas, 13 b y th e Englishmen' s acquisition o f the right s t o th e 'whit e clay ' o n Simeonov-Pishchik' s lan d (a t a knock-dow n price , on e suspects) , b y th e soun d o f a 'breakin g string' , which th e ever-practica l Lopakhi n i s alon e i n identifyin g correctl y a s a winding-cable snappin g i n a distan t min e shaft, 14 an d finall y b y th e soun d of the ax e felling th e commercially redundan t orchard . With som e justification , critic s hav e pointe d ou t tha t a n orchar d o f th e size indicate d b y Lopakhin' s calculation s i n Ac t On e (1,00 0 desyatins , o r about fou r squar e miles ) coul d scarcel y hav e existe d i n reality , eve n if , a s Gaev haughtil y remind s Lopakhin , i t i s s o remarkabl e a s t o meri t a n entr y in the 'Encyclopaedi c Dictionary' . Donal d Rayfiel d comments : To a less literal-minded and more receptive audience, the cherry orchard takes on fro m thi s poin t symboli c qualities : i t represent s a n economi c an d socia l dinosaur approachin g extinction . A cherry orchar d that could glut the world with cherrie s an d ye t canno t ear n it s owner s a living symbolize s a decrepi t world, a decrepit Russia for which ordered destruction is the only alternative to disordered ruination. 15 However, notwithstandin g th e espousa l o f th e pla y b y th e Russia n Symbo lists 16 an d Chekhov' s ow n regar d fo r th e mystica l allegorie s o f Mauric e Maeterlinck, ther e i s nothin g 'symbolic ' abou t th e cherr y orchar d (o r th e breaking string , fo r tha t matter ) i n th e sens e o f th e universal , th e transcen dental o r th e ineffable . A s a signifier , i t i s polysemi c yet quit e specific . Fo r Lopakhin, th e orchar d represent s bot h a n 'economi c dinosaur ' an d a n unmissable busines s opportunity , a s wel l a s embodyin g th e oppressio n suffered b y hi s fathe r an d earlie r generation s befor e th e emancipation . Paradoxically, i t i s als o fo r hi m 'th e mos t beautifu l plac e i n th e world ' - a beauty tha t (lik e Ranevskaya's ) h e ca n onl y eve r drea m o f possessing , an d which throug h possessin g h e i s boun d t o destroy . Fo r Ranevskay a an d Gaev, i t ha s alway s serve d a s th e provide r o f thei r idl y squandere d wealth , yet the y ar e obliviou s t o it s economi c significanc e an d i t evoke s onl y fon d memories o f thei r mother , thei r yout h an d thei r happiness . Fo r Firs , i t recalls a lucrativ e rura l econom y base d o n skill s lon g forgotte n throug h careless neglect . Fo r Trofimov , i t i s th e embodimen t o f a corrup t socia l order i n whic h Anya' s forebear s 'owne d livin g souls' , whos e eye s ca n b e seen starin g i n balefu l accusatio n 'fro m ever y cherr y i n th e orchard , fro m every leaf, from th e trunk o f every tree' (Frayn, p. 318) . In Chekhov' s earlie r play s i t i s possibl e t o identif y on e characte r wh o i s

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

EDWARD BRAU N

the agen t o f disruption . I n The Seagull, it i s Trigorin , wit h hi s casua l seduction o f Nina ; i n Uncle Vanya, it i s Professo r Serebryakov , wit h hi s breathtaking proposa l to dispose of Sonya's inheritance; in Three Sisters, i t is Natasha, with her remorseless annexation of the Prozorovs' house. But in The Cherry Orchard it become s clea r tha t everyon e i s a t th e merc y o f a process of change beyond their control and comprehension. Lopakhin is no exception; at the end of Act Three he seems as bewildered a s anyone by his own acquisitio n o f the estate, an d h e only begin s to grasp its full implica tions when the keys are hurled at his feet b y Varya. As he picks them up he remarks, somewha t superfluously , 'Sh e threw awa y the keys to sho w she's not i n charge here now.' Bu t in truth i t is a gesture (o r rather 'Gestus' ) a s profound i n it s socia l an d economi c significanc e a s anythin g tha t Brech t himself would ever conceive. The development of Lopakhin's character cost Chekhov more effort tha n any other in the play. Originally, he intended the role for Stanislavsky in the hope that his poise and stage presence would work against the portrayal of Lopakhin as the familiar stereotyp e of the vulgar self-mad e man. However, apprehensive tha t th e part wa s beyond him, Stanislavsky preferred t o play the 'aristocrat' Gae v and entrusted Lopakhi n t o Leonidov who, he assured Chekhov, wa s 'mil d an d gentl e b y nature'. 17 I n th e cours e o f rehearsal s Chekhov mad e a number o f changes to the text designe d t o brin g ou t th e sensitive aspec t o f Lopakhin' s character . I n particular , h e gav e furthe r emphasis t o hi s concer n i n helping Ranevskay a an d Gae v sav e the estate, and delete d a n exchang e betwee n the m referrin g t o a second mortgag e of 40,000 rouble s advance d b y Lopakhin. Also , h e mad e clea r th e dept h o f Lopakhin's tru e feeling s fo r Ranevskay a b y addin g i n Act On e the word s '. . . to se e your amazing , heart-breaking eye s looking a t me the way they used to' , an d ' I lov e yo u lik e m y ow n flesh and bloo d . . . more than my own flesh and blood? (Frayn, p. 292). 18

The fac t tha t Lopakhi n ca n ventur e eve n thi s tentativ e overtur e t o th e daughter o f his father's maste r is indicative of the collapse of the old social barriers - jus t as her failure even to register it shows how rooted sh e still is within her own class. Whilst Ranevskaya i s ready enough to marry of f he r adopted daughte r Vary a t o Lopakhin , i t i s onl y becaus e 'sh e come s fro m simple people' (Frayn, p. 311) - an d she may possibly have in mind as well the financial salvation tha t coul d ensue , even a t thi s elevent h hour . A s for Lopakhin, thoug h h e command s th e deferenc e o f Yepikhodo v an d Dun yasha, calls Gaev 'an ol d woman' to his face an d treats Varya a s an equal, he is still acutel y awar e o f hi s peasan t origins : self-consciou s i n his white waistcoat an d yello w shoes , and deepl y ashame d o f his lack o f education . He celebrates his triumph a t the auction in a manner worth y of his brutish 116 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

The Cherry Orchard

father, bu t whe n h e become s awar e o f Ranevskaya' s grie f h e consoles he r lovingly, gentl y reproachin g he r fo r no t heedin g hi s advic e an d wishin g tearfully tha t the y migh t chang e thei r 'miserabl e muddle d life ' (Frayn , p. 334) . At thi s poin t i n hi s promp t boo k Stanislavsk y note d 'H e weeps . The mor e sincerel y an d tenderl y th e better . S o wh y doesn' t Lopakhin , sensitive sou l tha t h e is , sav e Ranevskaya ? Becaus e h e i s a slav e t o commercial dogma , becaus e h e woul d b e ridicule d b y hi s fello w busi nessmen. Les affaires sont les affaires.' 19 A further indicatio n o f Chekhov's concern to convey this dualism in Lopakhin's character i s his late additio n in Ac t Fou r o f Trofimov' s lines : 'Al l th e same , I can' t hel p likin g you . You've got fine, sensitive fingers lik e an artist's. You've got a fine, sensitive soul, too ' (Frayn , p . 338). 20 T o whic h Lopakhin , revertin g t o mercenar y type, responds b y offending Trofimov' s dignit y with the ill-judged offe r o f a loa n fro m th e 40,00 0 rouble s tha t h e ha s cleare d wit h th e popp y harvest. These abrup t contradiction s i n Lopakhin's behaviour , whic h veer s fro m the carin g an d th e sensitiv e t o th e clums y an d th e downrigh t offensive , from th e compassionate t o the triumphalist, reflec t a persona strugglin g to adapt t o a radicall y change d role . B y contrast , Ranevskay a an d Gae v simply deny change, maintaining the manners and attitudes of a dying age, of which Fir s in his ancien t liver y an d whit e glove s is the living remnant . Ranevskaya see s her return from Pari s as a return to her lost childhood, an age o f innocenc e an d eterna l values , an d i t i s fitting tha t th e roo m sh e comes back to in Act One is the old nursery, which gives an illusory sense of life returnin g a s day breaks , the spring approache s an d the cherry trees come into blosso m onc e more. Once the orchar d i s sold the future ca n no longer b e denied , an d th e nurser y fro m whic h the y tak e thei r leav e i s stripped bare and 'col d a s hell', a scene of life departed an d a bleak resting place for the carelessly abandoned Firs. 21 Scarcely anyon e i n the pla y escape s th e impac t o f socia l change , a s the closing diaspor a make s clear . It is a measure o f Ranevskaya's fecklessnes s that, whilst taking Yasha back with her to Paris to surviv e for a brief spel l with th e mone y fro m th e great-aun t i n Yaroslavl, 22 sh e leave s Vary a t o enter servic e a s a housekeepe r fo r th e Ragulins , readil y accept s Anya' s assurance that Yasha has taken Firs to hospital, and gives no thought a t all to Charlott a who , destitut e an d wit h n o passport , i s lef t dependen t o n Lopakhin's charity . I n a moment o f abrup t gesti c clarit y Charlott a drop s her comic persona an d casts her swaddle d 'baby ' to the floor, where it lies abandoned like herself (Frayn , p. 342). As for Gaev , with his own survival comfortably secure d b y his position a s a 'financier' a t th e ban k (provide d he can get up in the morning and dress himself withou t Firs' assistance), all 117 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

EDWARD BRAU N

he can sa y is 'They'r e al l leaving us . Varya's goin g away . . . Suddenly n o one needs us anymore' (Frayn, p. 342). Apart fro m Lopakhin , th e characte r wh o cause d Chekho v th e greates t difficulty wa s th e 'perpetua l student ' Trofimov . A s Orland o Fige s com ments, 'The universities had been the organizational centre of opposition to the tsaris t regim e sinc e th e 1860s . I n th e Russia n languag e th e word s "student" an d "revolutionary " wer e almos t synonymous.' 23 I n Januar y 1901, followin g a wav e o f demonstrations , th e Ministe r o f Education , Bogolepov, ordere d th e conscriptio n int o th e arm y o f ove r 20 0 studen t leaders, then a month late r wa s assassinate d b y a Socialist Revolutionar y student. Despit e violen t polic e reprisals , demonstration s continue d o n a massive scal e an d i n Apri l 190 2 a twenty-year-ol d student , Balmashov , gained entry to the Mariinsky Palace in St Petersburg and shot the Minister of the Interior at point-blank range. After these events it is hardly surprising that Chekho v wrot e t o Olg a Knippe r i n Octobe r 1903 , 'The poin t i s that Trofimov i s always being exiled and thrown ou t of university, but how can you sho w thing s lik e that?' 24 W e ca n bu t gues s a t wha t Chekho v fel t constrained t o exclud e fro m hi s portrayal , bu t th e onl y passage s i n th e completed tex t t o catc h th e censor' s ey e wer e i n Trofimov' s tw o lon g speeches i n Ac t Two , th e first describin g th e livin g condition s o f th e workers, the second denouncin g the Gaev family t o Anya for 'Th e possession o f human soul s . . . living on credit, a t the expense o f others ' (Frayn , pp. 314,318) . Of al l th e character s i n th e play , Trofimo v i s th e on e wh o remain s unscathed b y the dissolution o f the estate; if anything, he emerges with his convictions reinforced an d ready to resume the struggle bac k a t university. Chekhov's portrayal o f Trofimov i s finely balanced; his trenchant diagnosi s of th e stat e o f Russi a i s irrefutabl e an d clos e t o th e dramatist' s ow n frequently expresse d views, yet the rhetoric is a shade too practised and , as John Tulloc h ha s observed , b y 190 4 'Chekho v coul d hav e tol d Trofimo v that chang e had taken place , that hi s own medical grou p wa s establishin g children's creches , tha t librarie s wer e bein g establishe d (Chekho v himsel f was supplyin g a new on e a t Taganrog wit h books).' 25 Trofimov's 'mangy ' appearance, his premature loss of hair and beard that refuses to grow are at comical odd s with his heroic utterances, an d his priggish assertio n tha t he is 'above love' is deservedly ridiculed by Ranevskaya; yet his assessment of Lopakhin is both affectionat e an d shrewd, s o that we are inclined to agree with hi m tha t Lopakhin' s grandios e plan s fo r th e estate' s transformatio n are little more than 'arm-waving' . As th e tex t neare d completion , Chekho v wrot e t o Olg a Knipper : 'I t seems to me that, however boring it might be, there is something new in my 118 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

The Cherry Orchard play. An d incidentally , i n th e entir e pla y ther e i s no t a singl e gunshot.' 26 The understatemen t i s typica l o f him : no t onl y i s ther e n o gunsho t (it s elimination emphasise d b y Yepikhodov's comi c threa t o f suicide) , but gon e is th e familia r famil y doctor , gon e ar e th e servant s wh o kno w thei r plac e and offe r comi c relie f o r ancien t wisdo m (forgotten , lik e th e recip e fo r dried cherries) , an d gon e i s th e centra l lov e intrigue , no w parodie d i n th e below-stairs burlesqu e o f Yasha , Dunyash a an d Yepikhodov , Trofimov' s high-minded friendshi p wit h Any a an d Lopakhin' s errati c courtshi p o f Varya. When Ranevskay a finall y persuade s hi m t o propos e t o Varya , ther e is a moment whe n comedic closure seem s imminent, bu t a s they flounder i n a successio n o f evasion s an d non sequiturs, i t become s painfull y clea r tha t such a matc h ha s n o plac e i n thi s ne w dram a o f Chekhov , wit h objectiv e necessity no t subjectiv e desir e bein g th e ultimat e determinan t i n huma n relations. The achievemen t o f thi s uniqu e pla y i s t o presen t thes e tw o imperative s in equal , teasin g complexit y - ye t ho w ofte n i n production s i s one stresse d to th e neglec t o f th e other . Wha t Trevo r Griffith s wrot e i n 197 7 i n th e introduction t o his version of the text stil l holds good today : The Cherry Orchard has always seemed to me to be dealing not only with the subjective pai n o f property-los s bu t als o an d mor e importantl y wit h it s objective necessity. T o present it as the first is to celebrate a pessimism; as to see it a s both i s to redres s a n importan t politica l balanc e poten t i n th e text Chekhov wrote but in practice almost wholly ignored. 27 NOTES 1 Author' s translate d extrac t publishe d i n New Left Review, n o, July-Augus t 1978, p. 5>o 2 Se e chapter 4 in this volume. 3 Se e Orlando Figes , A People's Tragedy; The Russian Revolution 1891-19Z4, London, 1996 , chapte r 2 ; see also Richard Charques , The Twilight of Imperial Russia, Oxford, 1958 , pp. 19-26. 4 Th e author's translation o f titles is used throughout thi s chapter. For alternative translations in Hingley or Wilks, see Appendix 1. 5 N . F. Belchikov an d others, eds., Anton Chekhov, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem v 30 tomakh, Moscow , 1974-8 3 (Anton Chekhov, Collected Works and Letters in 30 Volumes, Moscow , 1974-83) , vol . vn , p . 504 (subsequentl y referred to as Works or Letters). 6 Fo r an English translatio n o f 'A Visit to Friends' (a s 'All Friends Together' ) see Ronald Hingley , trans , an d ed., The Oxford Chekhov, vol. ix, Oxford , 1975, pp. 225-42 . 7 Nikola i Petrov , jo i 500 vserossiiskoe teatralnoe obschchestvo, Moscow, i960 , p. 405. 8 Chekho v doe s no t specif y th e exact locatio n o f the estate , thoug h th e nearest 119 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

EDWARD BRAU N

major tow n i s Kharkov. Stanislavsk y place d i t in either th e Orel o r the Kursk District, to the north of Kharkov (lette r to Chekhov, 1 9 November 1903) . 9 Pag e references t o The Cherry Orchard ar e to Anton Chekhov , Flays, trans , and intro. Michae l Frayn , London , 1988 , cite d a s Frayn. I n some instance s I have used my own translations - EB. 10 Thi s observatio n i s mad e b y Petrov , j o i 500 vserossiiskoe teatralnoe obschchestvo, pp . 415-24 . 11 Fo r a translation o f the complet e text s of the tw o poems , originall y publishe d in 1881 and 1858, see Frayn, pp. 368 , 316. 12 Inn a Solovieva , ed. , Rezhisserskie ekzemplyary K.S.Stanislavskogo, vol . in, 1901-4, Moscow , 1983 , pp. 374-5 . 13 Th e significance o f th e railways i n Russia' s economi c transformatio n ca n be gauged fro m th e fact tha t betwee n 189 1 an d 1905 nearl y 20,00 0 mile s o f new track were built . 14 A s Donald Rayfiel d point s out , i t is clear fro m bot h th e Moscow Ar t Theatre's original 190 4 prompt boo k an d fro m simila r sound s describe d i n tw o of Chekhov's shor t storie s ('Fortune ' an d 'Rolling Stone' , bot h 1887 ) tha t Lopa khin's explanatio n i s the correct one . The Cherry Orchard: Catastrophe and Comedy, Ne w York, 1994 , pp. 74 , 107 . 15 Ibid., p . 58. 16 Se e Andrei Bely , 'Th e Cherry Orchard ' i n Laurenc e Senelic k trans , an d ed. , Russian Dramatic Theory from Pushkin to the Symbolists, Austin , Texas , 1981, pp. 89-92 ; Vsevolo d Meyerhol d quote d i n Edwar d Braun , Meyerhold: A Revolution in Theatre, London , 1995 , pp. 2 2 - 3 . 17 Letters 11, p. 606 . Chekhov neve r becam e reconcile d to Leonidov's portraya l of Lopakhin; o n 24 March 190 4 h e wrote to Olga Knippe r ' I am very gla d to hear that Khalyutin a i s pregnant. Wha t a pity thi s can' t happe n t o some o f the me n in the cast, for example Alexandro v an d Leonidov.' Letters, vol . xn, p . 69. 18 Se e Works, vol . XIII, pp . 321-4 .

19 Solovieva , ed., Rezhisserskie ekzemplyary K.S.Stanislavskogo, vol . in, p. 425 .

20 Se e Works, vol . XIII, p . 333 .

21 Som e critic s hav e observe d tha t Fir s wil l b e rescued whe n Yepikhodo v return s from th e station , bu t as he lies motionless an d w e hea r th e thuddin g o f the axe and th e soun d o f the breakin g string , 'dyin g awa y an d sad', thi s is hardly likel y to b e the effec t i n the theatre . 22 Rayfiel d (The Cherry Orchard: Catastrophe and Comedy, pp . 85 , 90) is wrong in calculating that Ranevskay a wil l return to Paris with the unspent mone y fro m the great-aun t i n Yaroslavl and the proceed s o f the sale , making a comfortabl e sum o f 105,00 0 roubles . Lopakhi n make s i t clear i n Act One tha t th e estate is being sol d to pay thei r debt s (p.292 ) an d i n Act Fou r Ranevskay a refer s onl y to the money from th e great-aun t (p.342) . 23 Figes , A People's Tragedy, p . 165 . 24 Letters, vol . xi, p. 279 . 25 Joh n Tulloch , Chekhov: A Structuralist Study, Ne w York, 1980 , p. 9. 26 Letters, vol . xi, p. 256 . 27 Anto n Chekhov , The Cherry Orchard, a ne w Englis h versio n b y Trevo r Griffiths, London , 1978 , p. vi.

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

II IAN McKELLE N

Acting Chekhov : ' a friend t o the actor'

Ian McKelle n ha s played mor e Chekho v role s tha n an y other acto r o f his generation. These have included Konstantin in The Seagull in 1961-2 for The Belgrade Theatre , Coventry ; Tusenbac h fo r radio i n a Caedmon productio n of Three Sisters, 1966; Konstanti n in a BBC Radio production of The Seagull in 1967; a radio version of Chekhov's story 'A Provincial Life', dramatised by Peter Gil l i n 1970; Svetlovido v i n Swan Song for the opening o f the (then) new Crucible Theatre, Sheffield, Novembe r 1971 ; Khrushchev in The WoodDemon, th e Actors' Compan y i n 1973, directed b y David Giles , in Ronald Hingley's translation , Edinburg h Festiva l an d then touring ; Andre y ( a part taken over by Timothy Spall for the Stratford ru n and televised production) in Trevor Nunn' s Roya l Shakespear e Compan y productio n o f Three Sisters i n the 197 8 touring productio n (se e chapter 9 in this volume); Lopakhi n i n a revival o f The Cherry Orchard, directed an d translated wit h Lili a Sokolov a by Mik e Alfred s a t The National Theatre , designe d b y Paul Dart , opene d December 198 5 (first performed a t the Crucible Theatre, Sheffield, Septembe r 1981, with Roger Sloman as Lopakhin); Platonov in Michael Frayn's version, Wild Honey, of Chekhov's unfinished pla y Platonov, directe d by Christopher Morahan, Th e National Theatre , 1984-6 ; Vanya i n Sean Mathias' produc tion o f Uncle Vanya, translated b y Pam Gems , with Anton y She r as Astrov and Janet McTeer as Yelena, Royal National Theatre Studio production, then the Cottesloe, National Theatre, 1991 . Most recently (Octobe r 1998 ) he has played D r Dor n i n Jud e Kelly' s productio n o f The Seagull at th e Wes t Yorkshire Playhouse , designe d b y Robert Innes-Hopkins , i n a translation / version by Tom Stoppard.

VG Wit h the exception o f Shakespearean parts , you seem to have played more Chekho v role s tha n thos e o f an y othe r playwright : (i n Swan Song; Seagull; Ivanov; Uncle Vanya; Platono v in Wild Honey; Three Sisters, The Cherry Orchard and The Wood-Demon.) Do you have a favourite part ? IMC I suppose Vanya wa s the mos t attractive because I liked th e produc-

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

IAN McKELLE N

tion very much. It does depend o n who you're working with, and how the production goes. VG Hav e yo u approache d th e character s ver y differentl y - o r i s there a common approach or basis when you play a Chekhov role? IMC I don' t se e an y connectio n between , fo r example , Lopakhi n an d Vanya, but it depends on how the director set s things up. The big problem with Chekho v i s tha t w e don' t d o Chekhov - w e d o translations of Chekhov. Ver y fe w translator s - a t leas t thos e I'v e worke d wit h - wor k from the original. Instead they come from literal translations. It varies: Pam Gems doesn' t kno w Russia n whil e Michae l Fray n an d Richar d Cottrel l both do. Richard did Three Sisters in which I played Andrey.1 That explains the scepticism abou t Englis h o r American o r Germa n actor s talking abou t playing Chekhov. It's constantly frustrating no t to know how close you are to hi s intentions . I think i t i s a crucia l question , bu t I have never had a satisfactory repl y t o whethe r i n The Seagull Konstantin does kill himsel f when he shoots himself. Do we know? Al l the translators I'v e asked abou t it say : 'It' s jus t shot. ' An d whe n I ask whethe r 'shot ' mean s 'killed' , the y answer that 'i t coul d be' . Chekhov put it there in the origina l - bu t I shall never really know becaus e I don't speak Russian. VG I n the original Russian it is deliberately ambivalent, but implicit is the sense that Konstantin succeeds with his suicide. [See postscript.] IMc Ther e you are ! Likewise, everybody talks about Konstantin' s suicid e - bu t is it a successfu l on e o r i s i t anothe r failure ? An d ther e ar e othe r suicide attempts as well. Or there is the reference in Three Sisters to Soliony filling the room with smoke . It is not clear whether tha t is literal smoke or whether it' s just the general upse t which he causes wherever h e goes. Also you cannot b e certain abou t th e rhythm. S o Pam Gem s an d a lot o f othe r translators adapt Chekhov, cu t hi m withou t yo u knowing . When yo u ar e doing a production you are very much in the hands of the translator a s well as the director. So you cannot connect the plays in the way that you might connect Shakespeare' s wher e th e actin g problem s ar e commo n t o al l th e works. I couldn't sa y tha t abou t Chekhov' s play s becaus e I'v e neve r rea d them! I t i s a majo r problem . T o giv e on e example : I neve r won , bu t I wanted t o chang e Uncle Vanya to Uncle Jack, o r Uncle Johnny, whic h seems t o m e a fai r translation . Ther e i s onl y one Uncle Vanya, bu t everyone's go t a n Uncle Jack. That i s surely the point: that i t is just Uncle Jack. But with Uncle Vanya you're alread y of f int o th e realms o f hig h ar t

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Acting Chekhov: 'a friend to the actor' and romance. I think th e original i s a very unhelpful titl e in English, bu t I couldn't persuade the translator. VG I s thi s proble m alleviate d i f th e translatio n is , i n fact , overtl y a version} Thoma s Kilro y unequivocall y di d a version o f Seagull, set i n Ireland.2 Is it more honest to do that? IMC Le t me put it this way: I'm a great proponent of doing Shakespeare in 'modernish' dress. 3 But Chekhov is so close to us, and the circumstances of life i n Russi a on e hundre d year s ag o ar e s o readil y availabl e throug h people's writings, paintings, photographs, that you don't have to go outside of tha t contex t i n orde r t o understan d it . I wouldn' t hav e though t i t particularly helpfu l t o se t i t i n Irelan d becaus e th e Iris h ar e no t th e Russians. I could se e some point in doing it - bu t it wouldn't b e Chekhov. I've neve r don e ' a version' . I'v e alway s don e wha t th e translator s hav e claimed was Chekhov. It's i n the detail s whe n rooting aroun d th e transla tions that you discover that they've made their own changes. VG Particularl y Michael Frayn? IMc Th e only one of his I've done is the Platonov play - Wild Honey.4 VG Th e wa y h e pu t i t togethe r mad e i t ver y muc h Frayn' s pla y rathe r than Chekhov's . What di d you feel abou t th e ending with th e train an d so the potentia l fo r melodrama ? M y memory o f Chekhov' s origina l i s that i t doesn't rea d melodramaticall y an d wit h th e assumptio n tha t Platono v i s going t o thro w himsel f unde r th e train . Th e critic s seeme d t o thin k i t melodramatic. IMc Actin g it certainly didn' t fee l melodramatic , bu t I don't kno w how it ends i n Chekhov's play . I alway s though t tha t probabl y Platono v ha d jumped on to the back of a train - an d was already in Moscow by the time the audienc e ha d lef t th e theatre ! H e can' t simpl y die . I thin k hi s spirit survives, bu t i s that melodramatic ? I don't know . It seeme d ver y muc h in keeping wit h Frayn' s play . I alway s though t o f i t a s 'Frayn' s play', bu t I haven't rea d an y of his translations o f the plays that I know better , wher e presumably he hasn't taken liberties. VG It' s vital tha t yo u find i t frustrating no t bein g able to work fro m th e originals. Did Mike Alfreds approac h The Cherry Orchard and the whole question of translation very differently ? 123 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

IAN McKELLE N

IMC H e wa s credite d wit h th e translation , bu t I don't kno w o n what h e based it - certainl y not a knowledge of Russian. 5 He would have looked at lots of different versions , and he would have used a literal on e as well. But his techniqu e o f rehearsin g a pla y - an d tha t i s no t jus t particula r t o Chekhov's - answer s a lot of major question s abou t what's wrong with the general wa y o f rehearsing . Alfred s i s th e onl y directo r I kno w wh o ha s actually worke d ou t a method o f rehearsa l - a method whic h i s virtuall y foolproof i n creating a company, a n 'ensemble' - and in freeing th e actor' s imagination and keeping it free right through performances . There's nothing fixe d i n the blockin g a s to wher e the actor s may move. Obviously the y hav e to ente r fro m th e sam e place an d o n cue - bu t wha t you d o thereafter , ho w yo u pla y th e scen e i n term s o f emotion , al l tha t comes ou t o f th e circumstance s yo u discove r whe n yo u arriv e o n stage , which can diffe r fro m nigh t t o night. There's n o attemp t t o repeat. That's particularly helpfu l wit h Chekho v wher e th e audienc e i s likel y t o b e picking up as much information fro m a character who is quietly listening or not listening, or not speaking - a s the character who is speaking. There's a whole range of people on stage and each one of them is telling the story. I remember Alfred s sayin g tha t eac h o f th e actor s shoul d thin k the y ar e playing the leading part. That would b e inappropriate fo r man y plays, but for Chekho v it' s very helpful. O n th e whol e Alfreds doesn' t tel l you wha t his views ar e becaus e he would muc h rathe r le t things emerge . Yet he did believe ther e wa s somethin g vaudevillea n i n th e play , an d tha t whil e th e characters certainl y could b e playe d naturalistically , the y wer e als o ver y much 'types' . He wa s intereste d i n a n actin g styl e which woul d dra w th e audience's attentio n t o that . Certainl y th e desig n o f th e productio n - an d the costume s - wer e rathe r formalised . W e al l wor e roughl y th e sam e colours, but changed for each act in keeping with the seasons. I remember speakin g to the Russian directo r Efros. 6 H e made the point that Chekhov is not exclusively a naturalistic playwright, and that there are many many styles within his writing. You'd be hard put to know that fro m reading translations! Once you realise that yo u may be killing the effect o f a Chekho v pla y b y resolutel y playin g i t i n onl y on e style , then you'v e a chance of unlocking its richness. So if Michael Frayn makes Chekhov's play into a n English comedy, perhaps h e has that righ t given that Platonov is a rambling, unfinished , unperforme d pla y in a first draft . Bu t with the othe r Chekhov plays , lookin g aroun d fo r th e possibilit y o f differen t style s o f presentation can be very helpful. So th e Alfreds ' metho d work s ver y wel l becaus e th e actor s ar e fre e they're not just being told what to do. I wouldn't very much enjoy bein g in a Chekho v productio n - o r indeed o f an y play - wher e I was told exactl y 124 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Acting Chekhov: 'a friend to the actor' what t o d o - o r tha t som e specifi c effec t ha d t o b e mad e o n a particula r line. Mor e tha n mos t playwrights , Chekho v i s ver y har d t o pi n down . There is life happening on stage which is real life - bu t at the same time it's theatricalised. PA D o yo u thin k tha t Alfred s wa s pushin g yo u t o quit e specificall y represent 'Russian culture' - o r did it just evolve? IMC W e di d a lo t o f researc h collectively , bu t I'v e don e tha t wit h othe r productions of Chekhov as well. Actors are given tasks. For example, when you're doin g The Cherry Orchard o r Three Sisters, it's fundamenta l t o consider th e distance s tha t thes e character s ar e fro m th e place s the y tal k about - an d indeed, the places they go to. On this little island it' s difficul t for u s to conceive , t o feel , wha t thos e distance s mus t b e like. I remember trying t o wor k ou t th e siz e o f th e cherr y orchard . I n on e bi t o f math s (which I suspect wa s faulty) , w e worked ou t tha t th e cherr y orchar d wa s eight times as large as Hyde Park - absolutel y massive. 7 We tend to think of it as a couple of acres at the bottom o f a path, but this was a big industry. The possibility o f Lopakhin destroyin g it and building his houses indicates an entire town - no t just a row of cottages. How do you get that over to an audience? All that knowledge has somehow to get inside you. And as for bein g Russian, Lila Kedrova - whe n playing Arkadina 8 - ha d a sentence which she began in floods of tears and ended laughing her head off. That' s something we English don't have . There is that lack of restraint at times, and a desire to shar e feelings whic h are not peculiar t o Russians, but which are certainly not natural to British actors. I would always try and establish a bit of the flavour of that, and the Alfreds' method helped. VG Thi s fluidity betwee n laughte r an d tear s i n Russia , an d i n th e language, i s absolutel y natura l bu t whe n playe d i n English it ca n ofte n come ove r a s neuroti c - whic h i s a n actin g problem , isn' t it ? I t doesn' t necessarily mea n that th e character is neurotic. My reading of Lopakhin is that h e i s not neuroti c - man y thing s motivat e him , bu t no t neurosis . O r Chekhov himself sai d that Varia is 'a cry-baby'. When he wanted someon e to be a cry-baby, he actually said so. Is this a cultural problem which affect s the plays ? Hav e yo u foun d yoursel f worrie d abou t appearin g neuroti c i n any of the roles you've played? IMC No , but I'm aware that this is not an easy thing. It's a volatility and an openness whic h perhap s actor s hav e mor e than non-actors . But it isn't a n 'actorish' qualit y i n Chekhov' s characters , no r i s it peculia r t o Chekhov' s 125 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

IAN McKELLE N

plays. We meet this all the time. The acting problem is exactly the same when you pla y peopl e i n Italian plays . You've go t t o b e aler t t o thei r openness , their manners , an d a willingness t o sho w emotion i n a public place, all of which g o agains t Britis h training . Whic h i s probably wh y th e Britis h lik e actors so much - becaus e they rather envy what they think is their free spirit. VG Whe n Vanya fires - an d misse s - woul d yo u se e this perhaps o n one level as farcical, bu t on another level, deeply tragic, as part o f this duality? In lif e it' s almos t impossibl e t o fir e a gun an d mis s thre e time s i n suc h a small space. IMC Fortunately , that' s not my responsibility a s an actor. That's up to the audience. I don' t thin k i t woul d b e possibl e fo r Vany a himsel f t o b e s o objective tha t h e woul d fin d wha t h e wa s doin g funny . A s a n outside r watching th e play , yes, I think i t is perfectly possibl e t o fin d tha t momen t funny and pathetic. The aftermath come s in the next act of Uncle Vanya as he reverts to his old life, having had a good sniff o f how his life might have been different. I feel desperatel y sorry for him, but at the same time I think he needs a good shak e and tha t he should gro w up. You're not a s trapped as you think yo u are ! I don't reall y like productions o f Chekho v i n which the audience is told what to think and what to feel. It's very difficult no t to be tempted t o direc t thei r feelings - bu t al l you've got to d o is direct thei r attention - to say 'look at this'. I think that's what audience participation is. They ar e th e editors , the y ar e th e judges . It' s no t lik e a movi e wher e everything is decided. The audience can look where they want. That is why it's important i n a Chekhov pla y that wherever they look, ther e shoul d be extremely detailed life. VG Ma y I ask about your performance a s Svetlovidov in Swan Song} Th e one-act play s ar e considere d b y man y a s mer e trifles . An d Chekho v deliberately tried to put people off th e scent by calling them 'trifles' , ye t he worked an d worked a t them. Was your approac h t o Svetlovidov simila r to the mechanics o f approachin g th e part o f Vanya? O r wa s there somethin g about the one-act form which altered your approach? IMc Obviousl y the scale is smaller - jus t two people and their relationship. But I wouldn't thin k o f i t a s a trifle becaus e h e took a very dee p vie w of those old men and their relationship as it happens that particular night. PA A s an actor, do you have a sense of your audience's assumptions, and do you try to second-guess them at all? 126 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Acting Chekhov: 'a friend to the actor' IMC No , you can't guess what kind of reaction there might be. I mean, it's true that if you want the audience to feel that it is perfectly alrigh t to laugh at the character, you might exaggerate some effects t o indicate to them that humour i s allowed . I gues s that' s wha t Mik e Alfred s wante d wit h th e vaudevillean characters. VG I s it th e differenc e betwee n laughin g at someone - o r laughin g with them? M y feelin g wit h almos t everythin g Chekho v wrot e wa s tha t on e laughs with the characters, and not at them. There isn't a cruel element. IMc I thin k tha t woul d depen d o n wh o yo u were . Yo u migh t laug h at them. VG I suppose you would laugh at Pishchik in The Cherry Orchard when he takes Ranevskaya's pills. IMc Yes , indeed. When we did Wild Honey in the United States, it was not well received . On e perso n wh o ha d see n i t explaine d t o m e tha t i t wa s impossible to do a play 'for laughs' in the United States - thi s was about six years ago - i n which the leading character is an alcoholic. That man was ill. It couldn't be a farce. VG I s that why it didn't work? IMc Tha t was on e explanation . I woul d sa y tha t Platono v i s a comi c character, bu t there ar e other way s of looking at people who drink a great deal, whether you do them to be laughed at or to be cured. What I'm saying is that all we can do as a group is to play a piece as it seems to us. It's up to the audience to judge and enjoy it on whatever level they want. VG M y memor y o f you r performanc e o f Vany a wa s tha t i t differe d fascinatingly eac h tim e I saw it, bu t on e o f th e constant s wa s his rage. Is this your reading of the character? IMc H e is a deeply frustrated ma n in many ways, partly sexually. His lack of self-fulfilmen t i n middl e ag e ha s bee n tolerabl e becaus e h e ha s bee n managing the estate. He's found a role for himself , a job as a professional, and he gets o n with it . But when al l his work i s rejected, whe n he' s falle n head ove r heels for th e visitor, Yelena, whose husband Serebryako v has let him dow n - the n rage , disappointmen t an d frustratio n reac h th e poin t where he wants them to stop so much that he is going to kill. 127 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

IAN McKELLE N

VG Bu t whe n Vany a say s ' I migh t hav e bee n Schopenhauer , a Dos toyevsky', h e give s himsel f a potentia l rol e an d the n measure s hi s failur e against it. Perhaps what he needs is to find happiness in more modest terms. IMC I don't lik e tha t judgement . Al l I hav e t o d o a s a n acto r i s believ e i n what I' m sayin g a t th e momen t I sa y it . I hav e t o mak e decisions . A m I pretending? A m I lying? D o I really believ e it ? D o I feel it ? Ho w importan t is i t tha t I get th e othe r perso n t o understan d wha t I' m saying ? Ar e the y likely to ? Al l thos e things . It' s no t u p t o m e whethe r th e characte r woul d have bee n bette r of f i f he had o r hadn't sai d that. It' s not u p to me to say : is he foolish t o sa y that? H e just does sa y it. VG Ye t is it not part of your work as an actor to decide if he's playing a role, albeit sincerely, for himself or for other people ? Like Soliony in Three Sisters ? IMC I don't quite see it in those terms. Soliony, to outsiders, is an unpleasant annoying man , althoug h doesn' t th e Baro n sa y tha t i f yo u get hi m o n hi s own, he's alright ? He's a show-off, an d he exaggerates th e situation. All you have to d o a s an acto r i s ask if that give s him pleasure ? Ha s h e said it man y times before? Doe s h e believ e it ? On e mus t alway s tr y t o d o thi s withou t judging him . He' s a ma n wh o feel s ver y deeply . It' s no t u p t o m e t o judg e whether h e is constantly puttin g scen t o n his hands becaus e he doesn't wan t to smel l o f death . That' s fo r th e audience . Bu t h e feel s thing s s o strongl y because he' s frustrate d tha t h e can' t se e an y differen t wa y o f ho w t o dea l with hi s feelings excep t b y affecting othe r people . He's very nicely complex . I'm alway s tryin g no t t o tak e a n attitude , bu t delv e int o al l th e detail s o f what th e ma n is , an d wha t h e say s h e is , and wha t othe r peopl e sa y abou t him - an d presentin g that a s clearly a s possible . I suppose I have a n actor' s canniness tha t thi s lin e migh t strik e som e peopl e i n th e audienc e a s funny . But to go out and try to get a laugh from Chekho v reduces Chekhov . VG S

o complexity i s the key dimension o f the characters ?

IMc Yes . I would fin d i t very hard t o write abou t Chekhov , bu t I don't fin d it very difficult t o act . PA Ar e ther e an y othe r technica l approache s i n Alfreds ' metho d whic h help bring a group together ? IMc Many . H e ha s ver y lon g rehearsa l periods , usuall y week s an d weeks . Much o f th e earl y rehearsa l i s sittin g aroun d an d dissectin g th e tex t fo r 128 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Acting Chekhov: 'a friend to the actor' information abou t you r ow n character , an d othe r people's . Throwing ou t long list s o f wha t th e character s do , wha t the y sa y abou t themselve s an d about eac h othe r an d wha t thei r pas t was . All o f this materia l i s garnered from th e text. Chekhov's wor k ha s much more detail abou t people' s lives, past and present, than in most plays. With a play like Closer 9 we know very little about these people when they are not relating to each other - w e have no ide a wher e the y com e from . Chekho v provide s muc h mor e satisfyin g characters t o pla y becaus e yo u hav e suc h detail s tha t yo u don' t nee d t o guess. I think his instruction to Stanislavsky was that you should not guess, because the material is all there. So a lot of rehearsal preparation is spent on the actors inhabiting the world and their characters so completely that they can go on being credible whethe r the y ar e sittin g down, standin g up, with their bac k to the audience, shouting , laughing o r crying. Whatever they'r e doing, the y jus t g o o n 'being' . A s we al l d o in ou r ow n live s - w e go o n being ourselves. That's how it is in a Mike Alfreds' production. Or you might one day do the play with the whole point of concentration on money - s o that a s you ar e doin g The Cherry Orchard, you woul d b e alert to what is said about money: knowing how much money you earned; how much you'r e likely to earn, an d ho w much you have in your pocket . You discover that every character ha s some problem with money. Whether they've got it or not, they all know a great deal about money and when you do it like that, the whole play seems to be about money! Or you can make the poin t o f concentratio n th e pas t - an d yo u the n discove r tha t the y al l talk about the past non-stop. Equally, the emphasis can be the future - an d they all talk about the future! There ar e s o many theme s goin g o n i n Chekhov' s plays , bu t i n suc h a delicate way, always rooted and expressed in the text. Or another technique is that on e day you do a run-through - an d the n your poin t o f concentra tion i s one particular character . I f it was Trofimov, fo r example , the n yo u would onl y do Trofimov's scenes , and in those scenes the thing uppermos t in you r min d a s a n acto r wa s that character . Yo u migh t fin d yoursel f ignoring him, bu t yo u woul d know yo u wer e ignorin g hi m - an d why . Once tha t ha s bee n don e wit h al l o f th e characters , righ t dow n t o th e postman, you then realise as an actor that you can go on being Lopakhin who I wa s - whethe r yo u ar e sayin g you r line s t o Trofimov , o r t o Ranevskaya, o r to Dunyasha. It doesn't matter - yo u go on being yourself. And there' s n o en d t o th e way s i n whic h yo u ca n tel l th e story . Thi s wouldn't necessaril y wor k i n a large theatre wher e stag e pictures ar e very important, bu t in a small theatre, where the audience can see everything at close quarters, then I think it works. Chekhov appeals to me because you cannot realise the play in production 129 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

IAN McKELLE N

unless ever y par t ha s bee n worke d o n fully . Tha t isn' t tru e o f mos t playwrights. Bu t i t als o mean s tha t i t i s al l th e mor e intolerabl e i n Three Sisters i f yo u hav e a weak Solion y o r a poor Andrey . Chekhov allow s the actors ful l rei n an d ye t doesn' t allo w an y on e acto r t o ru n awa y with th e play. It reaffirm s wha t I most enjo y abou t actin g i n th e theatre , whic h i s working in a group. VG S o is it playing with it , playing 'of f othe r people ? I s that wh y every performance i s different ? IMC Ever y performance ha s to b e different becaus e everybody's tryin g t o put themselve s int o it . Toda y th e weathe r i s differen t fro m yesterday ; th e audience i s different - an d yo u ar e different . Ho w ca n yo u possibl y d o it the sam e way ? Yo u can' t breath e th e sam e air . It' s no t th e sam e word s you're saying . Those words hav e gone. It's a nonsense t o tr y an d mak e i t the same. It cannot be done. PA Som

e actors try to do that.

IMc Most . In a musical these days, if a singer decides for some reason to sing louder or softer it will be adjusted b y the sound technician at the back who is desperately trying to fix the sound as agreed during the technical rehearsal. But returnin g t o Chekhov , anothe r bi g erro r wit h man y production s i s that the characters are so often 'impersonated ' by actors who are the wrong age. Recently , ther e wa s a very youn g Vanya. 10 That' s a little perverse , I think, unless you're doing a play about Vanya as opposed to the play called Vanya. Trigorin is normally played far too old. Trigorin and Konstantin are the sam e generatio n an d yo u can' t reall y fee l th e sexua l tensio n an d jealousy there in The Seagull, professionall y and personally, unless you see that they are envious of each other because they are close in age. VG Equally , Chekho v sai d that Ranevskay a i s an ol d woman. He didn' t want hi s wife Olg a Knipper 11 t o play her becaus e he thought sh e was too young. IMc Age s aren't always mentioned but you can usually work them out. VG Hav e yo u see n a Russia n productio n o f an y o f th e play s whic h clarified contextua l elements which you hadn't thought of? IMc Ther e wa s a production i n Mosco w o f The Cherry Orchard at th e 130 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Acting Chekhov: 'a friend to the actor' Taganka Theatre. 12 A t th e beginnin g o f th e play , Lopakhi n cam e o n an d although Dunyash a wa s on stage, he spoke directly to the audience. There are many occasions in Chekhov when a character is left alon e on stage and is speaking. I've tried in this country, but I've never succeeded in persuading other actor s tha t i t is appropriate fo r th e acto r t o spea k directl y t o th e audience a s Shakespeare' s character s constantl y d o - brea k throug h th e fourth wall . When Alfred s talk s abou t vaudevill e I think it' s connecte d t o that. Th e character s ar e s o self-confident , s o need y t o b e themselve s tha t sometimes ther e i s no-on e els e aroun d fo r the m t o spea k t o except th e audience. It doesn't mean you have to stop being your character or that you are no longer in Russia. It's just the magic of the theatre that you can be in Russia and the theatre a t the same time. Andrey, for example , hardly ever gets to speak t o anyone else. When he speaks in Act Two, his wife doesn' t listen and the other person he speaks to - Ferapon t - i s deaf. In the third act he speaks t o his sister s wh o ar e behin d th e screens . I tried t o sugges t tha t Andrey might talk to the audience, bu t Trevor Nun n wasn' t interested . So it's somethin g w e don't ofte n se e in a British production. I'v e alway s tried to get people to se e Mikhalkov's film version o f Platonov - An Unfinished Piece for Mechanical Piano. Even with film where directors have the upper hand an d its as much their story as the author's, Mikhalkov had licence to shape the material as he wanted yet time and again the camera in his filmis way back - an d we see all the characters simultaneously. 13 PA I s there any more Chekhov that you're burning to do? IMC I' d lik e t o d o Vany a agai n becaus e w e onl y di d i t fo r abou t thre e months. I' m goin g t o d o Dor n i n The Seagull this autum n a t th e Wes t Yorkshire Playhouse , with Jude Kell y directing . That pla y i s so essentially about theatr e peopl e tha t a company o f actor s ca n brin g a n awfu l lo t o f their own lives to it, even though it was written a hundred years ago and in another country . We're goin g t o se t u p a company o f actor s wh o ca n d o three o r fou r play s on e afte r th e other . A s usual, i n thos e circumstances , Chekhov immediatel y spring s t o min d a s a ver y goo d wa y o f bindin g a group. Th e majo r jo y o f Chekho v i s th e grou p tha t doe s it . Also , ever y detail o f th e relationship s betwee n th e characters , whethe r the y spea k t o each other much or not, is very clearly present in the text. It's very easy and quick to read what the situation is, which isn't true of Ibsen, for example. 14 Chekhov is a wonderful frien d t o the actor.

131 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

IAN McKELLE N

2 Ia n McKellen (D r Dorn) an d Claudi e Blakley (Nina ) i n The Seagull at the West Yorkshir e Playhouse presented b y the West Yorkshire Playhouse Courtyard Company , Leeds, Octobe r 1998 directed b y Jude Kelly, designed b y Robert Innes-Hopkins .

NOTES This intervie w wit h Ia n McKelle n an d th e editor s too k plac e a t th e Roya l National Theatre, London, in May 1998. 1 Se e chapter 9 in this volume. 2 Se e chapters 7 and 9 in this volume. 3 I n 199 5 Ia n McKelle n co-wrot e an d co-produce d Richard III, directe d b y Richard Loncraine , a s an extremely successfu l featur e film , an d played the title role i n 1930 s militar y uniform . Th e parallel s wit h th e ris e o f Fascis m wer e evident i n th e militar y dress , th e colou r symbolis m an d McKellen' s brillian t manipulation of 'the people', highly reminiscent, though not imitative, of Hitler. 4 Wild Honey, Michael Frayn' s versio n o f Chekhov' s unfinishe d Flatonov was directed b y Christopher Morahan , an d designe d b y John Gunter . I t opene d a t the Lyttelton Theatre, National Theatre, in July 1984. 5 Alfred s worked o n the translation with Lilia Sokolova, who provided the literal Russian translation. 6 Anatol y Efros, on e of the great iconoclastic directors of the post-Stalinist years, was responsible for th e radically innovative production o f The Cherry Orchard which se t the play non-naturalistically i n a graveyard/huge bed . For a detailed description o f that productio n i n English, see chapters 3 , 12, 14 and 1 5 in this volume. See also Theatre Quarterly, 7 , 1977, pp. 34-47: 'Anatolij Efros direct s Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard and Gogol' s The Marriage', i n a n articl e b y M. Shevtsova. And see note 12 below. 132 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Acting Chekhov: 'a friend to the actor' 7 Se e chapter 1 0 in this volume on the size of the orchard. 8 Lil a Kedrova , a French-Russian actress , played Arkadin a i n the productio n o f Seagull translated an d directe d b y Richar d Cottrell , firs t don e a t th e Art s Theatre, Cambridge, July 1970. 9 Th e reference here is to the play, Closer, written and directed by Patrick Marber, first performed a t the Royal National Theatre, May 1997. 10 Thi s is a reference t o Katie Mitchell's production o f Uncle Vanya, translate d by David Lan, with the forty-one-year-old Stephe n Dillane as Vanya - a Young Vic/ RSC co-production, 1 April 1998. 11 Olg a Leonardovna Knippe r (1868-1959) , the actress who married Chekho v in May 1901 , three year s befor e hi s deat h fro m tuberculosis , an d whe n h e was already 'exiled ' t o Yalt a fo r th e winter month s becaus e o f hi s illness . Knipper was the original Arkadina in the MAT production of The Seagull; played Yelena (Helen) i n Uncle Vanya (against Chekhov' s wishes) ; playe d Mash a i n Three Sisters ( a part he wrote for her) and was the original Ranevskaya in The Cherry Orchard - again , against Chekhov's wishes since he felt she was too young. She died a t th e ag e o f ninety-on e (althoug h a mistak e o n he r passpor t mad e he r officially tw o year s younger , bor n i n 1870 , s o dyin g age d eighty-nine ) afte r playing thos e an d othe r part s i n successiv e MA T productions, man y o f whic h remained more or less unaltered from the original productions. 12 Vishnevyi sad (The Cherry Orchard), directed b y the innovatory Anatol y Efro s in 1975, designed by Valery Levental. See chapters 11, 14 and 15 in this volume, and note 6 above. 13 Se e chapters 4 and 13 in this volume. 14 A t the time of this interview, Ian McKellen was playing Dr Stockmann in Ibsen's An Enemy of the People, directed b y Trevo r Nun n a t th e Roya l Nationa l Theatre, London. Postscript: Ian McKellen was filming in New Zealand at the time of final proof-reading, a major factor which did not, however, stop him from generously telephoning his corrections/ suggestions. Concerning the exact words Chekhov gives Dr Dorn at the end of The Seagull about Konstantin' s suicid e (se e p. 12 2 of this interview), Chekhov uses the word 'zastrelilsya ' (th e pas t perfective) , whic h literall y translate s tha t las t lin e a s 'Konstantin Gavrilovic h has shot himself dead. ' Or more idiomatically, 'Konstanti n . . . has killed himself.' With reference to the editorial point in the interview, therefore, it is quite clear that Konstantin has killed himself this time. Also, Dorn is a doctor. The ambivalence in English translation is born out by the following examples . In Hingley, The Oxford Chekhov, vol. 11 , Act Four , p . 281 , Dorn says : 'Th e fac t is , Constantine ha s sho t himself . I n E.K. Bristow' s version , Anton Chekhov's Plays, New York , 1977 , p . 51 , it reads : 'Th e fac t is , Konstanti n Gavrilovic h ha s sho t himself; thi s translatio n i s identica l i n Elisavet a Fen' s Chekhov Plays, Penguin Classics, i96 0 (reprin t o f 1951) , p. 183, and is again identical in S.S. Koteliansky's translation in Tchekhov - Plays and Stories, London, New York, 1974, p. 101. This raised a more contentious question than I had realised at the time, and before going back to the original, so this postscript is also a belated apology to Ian McKellen for a misleading response in the interview which, however, does prove his point. The ambivalence is in the English translation, not the Russian original. V.G. 133 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

12 ARNOLD ARONSO N

The scenography o f Chekho v

The stag e demand s a degre e o f artific e . . . you hav e n o fourt h wall . Besides , the stag e i s art , th e stag e reflect s th e quintessenc e o f lif e an d ther e i s n o nee d to introduce anythin g superfluou s o n to it. 1

These wer e Chekhov' s word s t o a n acto r durin g th e rehearsal s fo r th e Moscow Ar t Theatr e premier e o f The Seagull, and i t encapsulate s th e ongoing struggle s Chekho v woul d hav e wit h Stanislavsky' s productions . Chekhov was a Symbolist playwright trapped in a Naturalist theatre. In his texts th e setting s wer e describe d wit h a stark, ye t poeti c minimalis m an d could b e seen as part o f the Symbolist project t o fuse interio r an d exterio r states of mind. For Chekhov, as for Maeterlinck whom he greatly admired, the concret e element s o f th e externa l worl d wer e manifestation s o f emo tional states of being; what Richard Wagner called 'soul states'. The settings are virtual roadmaps to the psyche, and so complete is the identification o f the characte r wit h th e deco r tha t i f th e settin g wer e take n awa y th e character woul d cease to exist. ' I love this house,' says Madame Ranevsk y in Act Three of The Cherry Orchard. 'Without th e cherry orchard m y life would los e it s meaning , an d i f i t mus t reall y b e sol d the n g o an d sel l me with the orchard.' 2 Such unity o f scenograph y an d sel f i s unique amon g th e playwright s of the time . Nora , i n Ibsen' s A Doll's House, fo r example , mus t hav e a house t o leave , o f course , bu t fo r al l th e specificit y o f Ibsen' s stag e descriptions, no single item has the resonance o r necessity of the bookcas e in Uncle Vanya, the dinin g tabl e i n Three Sisters or th e nurser y i n The Cherry Orchard. These ar e crucial emblemati c an d atmospheri c elements , and se t piece s eve n functio n a s determinant s o f th e rhyth m o f hi s plays , such a s th e chai r ove r whic h Yepikhodo v stumble s i n The Cherry Orchard. Yet Chekho v wa s no t s o muc h intereste d i n th e detail s o f rea l life a s i n th e evocatio n o f a stat e o f mind , o f th e so-calle d nastroenie, and everythin g o n th e stag e wa s subordinate d t o thi s end . Chekhov' s

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

The scenography of Chekhov scenography aim s at an emotional sensibility , not a documentary recordin g of domestic decor. And yet, the popular conception o f a Chekhovian setting is not the spare and evocative on e implied b y the stage directions, but on e that i s rich an d cluttered; i t i s a n imag e o f painstakingl y detaile d houses , room s an d ol d furniture, al l imbued with the crushing weight o f memories an d unfulfille d desires a s i n Michae l Blakemore' s productio n o f Uncle Vanya (London , 1988) whic h wa s describe d b y on e criti c a s 'choc-a-blo c wit h saplings , samovars, an d duf f furniture.' 3 Chekho v ha s becom e s o closely identifie d with thi s imager y tha t h e ha s joine d tha t smal l fraternit y o f playwright s who have lent their very names to the language a s adjectives. Bu t whereas Sophoclean, Shakespearean , Brechtia n o r Pinteresque , fo r example , primarily ten d t o identif y a styl e o f writing , a poin t o f view , a particula r content, or , mor e ephemerally , a dramati c world , th e ter m 'Chekhovian' , more than an y other, conjures u p a landscape. It is, almost b y definition, a visual style. It is so ingrained i n our consciousness tha t whe n performanc e artist Stuart Sherman created his rarified deconstructio n o f Chekhov's texts entitled, simply, Chekhov (1985) - a twelve-minute abstractio n o f gestures and sound s - hi s stag e direction s calle d fo r ' a realisti c Chekhovia n drawing-room, wit h larg e Persia n ru g an d dining-tabl e (o n whic h ca n b e seen teacups, playing cards, an ashtray containing a half-smoked cigar , and candlesticks) . . . a n armchair, a samovar, and a cabinet, which holds icons, books an d famil y photographs' . Thoug h Chekho v ma y neve r hav e de scribed suc h a room , i t wa s instantl y recognisabl e t o spectator s a s th e quintessential Chekhovia n landscape . (Thi s 'room' , whic h occupie d hal f the stage , was people d no t wit h actor s bu t wit h two-dimensiona l cutout s on which were printed fragments o f Chekhov's texts.) But if suc h particularised scenograph y i s not explicitl y demande d i n the texts, then why do we retain this impression? While the symbiotic relationship of Chekhov and the Moscow Art Theatre, of course, proved beneficia l for bot h o f them , th e Naturalisti c approac h o f Stanislavsk y an d hi s designer, Viktor Simov, 4 had the unfortunate effec t o f encasing the plays in a highly detailed, representational, physica l world that ha s imprinted itself on theatrical consciousness. The plays and the decor have become inextricably linked, not unlike the later designs of Caspar Neher for Bertolt Brecht, or Jo Mielziner fo r Tennesse e Williams. From the 1950 s onward, however, directors and designers have tried, with varying degrees of success, to break away from th e Naturalistic framework an d find something more in keeping with Chekhov's Symbolist tendencies. Given th e theatrica l practice s o f th e day , th e Naturalisti c approac h t o scenography wa s probabl y inevitable . Neithe r Stanislavsk y no r Chekho v

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

ARNOLD ARONSO N

had the vocabulary for creating a new style. Moreover, Stanislavsky, for all his influence o n twentieth-century theatre , wa s immersed i n the lat e nineteenth-century aesthetic . His work wa s a culmination o f ove r a century of developments toward psychological realism in acting and Romantic realism in design. Scenographically, thi s meant the illusionistic practices o f fourth wall Naturalism . Chekhov , fo r hi s part , despit e som e knowledg e o f Western Europea n Symbolis t playwrights , ha d not , o f course , see n th e productions o f Paul Fort's Theatre d'Ar t i n Paris. Even if he had, a formal Symbolist scenograph y wa s never clearl y articulated , althoug h playwrigh t Pierre Quillar d se t fort h a Symbolis t approac h t o desig n whe n h e stated , 'Speech create s scener y lik e everythin g else.' 5 Chekho v wa s inexorabl y approaching the same aesthetic on his own, something that Maxi m Gork y apparently recognised in Chekhov when he wrote, 'You are a man who can create a characte r wit h a mer e word , an d wit h a sentenc e tel l a whol e story.'6 Quillar d calle d fo r a mise-en-scene that woul d 'emphasiz e th e infinite multiplicit y o f time an d space' . By abolishing the accretion s o f the Naturalist stage , th e Symbolist s hope d t o fre e theatr e fro m it s inevitabl y flawed attempts to reproduce reality an d instead allo w theatre to 'b e what it should be: a pretext for a dream'. Though Simov and Stanislavsky neither attempted nor achieved such a visual world, Quillard's aesthetic anticipated the post-1960 approach to Chekhov. Chekhov's minimalis t se t descriptions, in fact, ar e closest in spirit to the ideas o f Appia 7 (thoug h wit h n o direc t influenc e sinc e mos t o f Appia' s writings cam e afte r Chekhov' s death) . The secon d ac t o f Uncle Vanya for instance is described thus: 'The dining room in Serebryakov's house. Night. The watchman can be heard tapping in the garden. Serebryakov is sitting in an armchai r i n fron t o f a n ope n window , h e i s dozing.' 8 Tha t i s al l - n o description o f furnishing s o r decor , althoug h ther e ar e reference s throughout th e ac t that indicat e th e need fo r a table, a window, a door, a sideboard, and a few chairs. Think of Chekhov's settings as Appia declares: 'We shall no longer tr y to give the illusion o f a forest, bu t the illusion o f a man i n th e atmospher e o f a forest . Ma n i s th e reality , an d nothin g els e counts . . . Scenic illusion is the presence of the living actor.' 9 By th e tim e o f The Cherry Orchard, Chekho v seem s clearl y t o b e attempting a Symbolist-like fusio n o f interio r an d exterio r state s o f mind , one i n whic h th e ver y wall s o f th e hous e see m almos t transparent . Th e setting fo r Ac t On e o f The Cherry Orchard is describe d a s ' A roo m tha t still goe s b y th e nam e o f th e nursery . On e o f th e door s lead s t o Anya' s room. It is dawn and the sun will soon come up. It is May. The cherry trees are i n flower, but i n th e orchar d i t i s cold , ther e i s mornin g frost . Th e windows in the room are closed.' 10 The locale is identified an d we are told 136 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

The scenography of Chekhov that ther e i s a door and , significantly , wher e tha t doo r leads . If thi s wer e Ibsen o r Sha w ther e woul d b e detaile d description s o f furniture , bric-a brac, carpets , wal l covering s an d th e like . Bu t wha t i s importan t i n thi s description is the exterior; there is a continuity between the nursery and the world beyond , a s i f th e nurser y ca n b e understoo d onl y i n term s o f th e context o r environmen t i n whic h i t sits . Exterio r scenes , i n turn , hav e a fluidity tha t take s them beyond the mere confines o f the stage. Act Four of Three Sisters, for instance , unfold s i n 'Th e ol d garde n attache d t o th e Prozorov house . A long avenu e o f fir trees a t th e end o f which is seen the river. On the other side of the river - a forest. O n the right is the terrace of the house.' 11 Th e hous e i s almos t a n afterthought . Wha t i s clearl y mos t significant fo r Chekho v i s th e vist a stretchin g int o th e distanc e wit h it s implication o f continuity an d th e promised lan d tha t th e sister s can never reach: a garden, a river, a forest - lef t unstated , o f course, is Moscow, fa r beyond. While th e stag e direction s fo r The Seagull are th e mos t detaile d o f th e major plays , Chekhov already evinces an eye for th e larger picture an d the unseen world that surrounds his characters: Part of the park on Sorin's estate. A broad avenue leads from th e view of the audience into the depths of the park toward a lake. A platform stag e - piece d together an d hastil y buil t fo r a home performanc e - ha s bee n placed acros s the avenue in such a way that the lake cannot be seen. To the left and right of the platform stag e is shrubbery. There are a few chairs and a small table. The sun has just set. . . 12

In My Life in Art, however, Stanislavsky describes the same setting with the pride of someon e who has learned wel l from th e Duke of Saxe-Meininge n and Andre Antoine. On the very forestage, righ t near the footlights, in direct opposition to all the accepted laws and customs of the theatre o f that time, almost all the persons in th e pla y sa t o n a lon g swingin g benc h characteristi c o f Russia n countr y estates, with their backs to the public. This bench, placed in a line with some tree stumps that remained from a destroyed forest, bordere d an alley set with century-old tree s tha t stoo d a t a measured distanc e fro m eac h other . I n the spaces betwee n thei r trunks , whic h seeme d mysteriou s i n th e darknes s o f night, ther e showe d somethin g i n the form o f a proscenium tha t wa s closed from sigh t b y a larg e whit e sheet . Thi s wa s th e open-ai r theatr e o f th e unsuccessful an d unacknowledged Treplev. 13

The proble m wa s conflic t o f intentions . Chekhov , docto r tha t h e was , observed th e rea l worl d i n carefu l detail , bu t the n distille d i t t o poeti c essences. Stanislavsk y too k th e essence s an d fleshed the m ou t agai n into three-dimensiona l illusions . I n hi s correspondenc e wit h Stanislavsk y 137 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

ARNOLD ARONSO N

regarding The Cherry Orchard, fo r example , Chekho v indicate s a ver y specific inspiratio n fo r th e environment . 'It' s a n ol d mano r house, ' h e sai d of th e Ranevsk y estate . 'Som e tim e ag o th e peopl e wh o live d ther e di d s o on a very rich scale, and thi s must b e felt i n the setting. A feeling o f richnes s and cosiness.' 14 A few week s later he provided mor e details : The house is a large two-storied on e . . . [It] has to be large an d solid : made of wood or stone, it doesn't matter which. It is very old and of enormous size of a kin d whic h holida y maker s don' t ren t bu t pul l dow n an d us e th e materials t o buil d summe r cottages . Th e furnitur e i s old-fashioned , stylish , and solid; their financial straits and debts haven't affected th e furnishings. 15 Yet Chekho v di d no t inten d fo r Stanislavsk y t o buil d a n actua l house ; afte r all, we never se e the exterior . Th e poin t wa s t o creat e th e essenc e o f suc h a house o n th e stage . Stanislavsky , nonetheless , move d towar d greate r an d greater detail . Meyerhol d describe d ho w th e 190 5 reviva l o f The Seagull, for instance , became even more illusionistic : Every corner o f the set was laid bare : there was a summer house with a real roof an d real columns; there was a real ravine on stage . .. I n the revival the windows i n the improve d se t face d th e spectato r s o that th e landscap e wa s visible. You r imaginatio n wa s silenced , an d whateve r th e character s sai d about th e landscape, you disbelieve d them becaus e i t could never b e as they described it; it was painted and you could see it.16 While h e ma y no t hav e ha d a specifi c Symbolis t vocabular y wit h whic h to describ e hi s settings , Chekho v understoo d th e contradictio n o f minglin g the foun d object s o f th e rea l worl d wit h th e carefu l artific e o f th e stage . 'There's a genre painting b y Kramskoy,' h e explained t o a n acto r durin g th e rehearsal o f The Seagull, accordin g t o Meyerhold , 'i n whic h th e face s ar e portrayed superbly . Wha t woul d happe n i f yo u cu t th e nos e ou t o f on e o f the painting s an d substitute d a real one ? Th e nos e woul d b e "realistic " bu t the pictur e woul d b e ruined.' 17 A few year s later , shortl y befor e hi s death , Chekhov woul d ech o thi s sentimen t whe n h e wrot e o f The Cherry Orchard, 'Stanislavsk y ha s ruine d my play.' 18 B y mixing two-dimensiona l painted scener y wit h rea l furniture , no t t o mentio n a very rea l cryin g baby , Stanislavsky had , i n essence, put a real nose in the artistic framewor k o f th e playChekhov wen t i n an d ou t o f favou r i n Russi a an d th e USS R ove r th e following decades . Despit e a mov e toward s a mor e lyrica l an d Impressio nist decor , especiall y i n th e design s o f Vladimi r Dmitrie v i n th e 1940s , th e scenography wa s stil l solidl y i n th e traditio n o f Simo v wit h on e notabl e exception. I n 1944-5 , Alexande r Tairo v directe d a theatricalist productio n of The Seagull a t th e Kamern y Theatr e tha t wa s clearl y intende d a s a 138 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

The scenography of Chekhov rejection o f th e Naturalisti c styl e o f Stanislavsky' s production s an d espe cially thos e o f th e Socialis t Realis m dominan t i n th e Sovie t Unio n a t th e time. Perhap s inspire d b y th e deman d fo r ne w form s b y the characte r o f Treplev, an d wit h a no d t o Appi a an d Craig, 19 Tairo v largel y replace d illusionistic scener y with platform s an d blac k velve t drape s an d a n almos t exclusively black an d white colour schem e that led some critics to describe it a s funereal . I n th e wanin g day s o f Worl d Wa r I I an d i n th e wak e o f Stalin's purges , th e starknes s o f th e se t mus t hav e bee n striking . B y th e 1950s, in both the Soviet Union an d elsewhere, the conventional 'Chekho vian' se t - mor e accurately , a 'Simovian ' se t - bega n t o see m date d b y modern standards . Moreover , th e element s o f Chekhov' s setting s whic h once serve d a s a subtl e an d detaile d semioti c guid e t o a complex psychosocial worl d becam e meaningles s excep t a s self-referents . Naturalisti c settings whether fo r Chekhov , Hauptmann, o r Strindber g becam e indistinguishable allusions to a previous century. And the specific props, costumes and se t pieces now associated wit h Chekho v n o longer signifie d aspect s of Russian societ y at the turn o f the century but came to stand for Chekhov' s plays themselves. New approaches were needed. Directors an d designer s workin g sinc e the 1960 s hav e attempte d t o ri d the stag e o f lingering nineteenth-century sentimentalit y whil e emphasisin g the fluidity of inne r an d oute r worlds . Th e pastich e approac h typica l o f postmodernism wa s particularly well suited to Chekhov. Designers seemed to b e following th e advic e of avant-gard e compose r an d theoreticia n John Cage who, whe n aske d abou t ho w t o trea t classics , suggeste d tha t rathe r than simpl y rejectin g them , the y shoul d b e 'quoted ' i n ne w productions . Fragments o f traditiona l Chekhovia n scenograph y place d an d juxtapose d within a mor e abstrac t environmen t becam e increasingl y commo n i n productions from the 1970s onward. The first step i n breakin g th e realistic , sentimenta l gri p wa s take n i n a i960 productio n o f The Seagull directed b y Otomar Krejc a an d designe d by Josef Svobod a a t the Tyl Theatre in Prague. (See Appendix 4.) Svobod a encased th e stag e i n blac k drape s s o tha t th e actor s wer e i n a theatrica l void. The park - indeed , the natural world - existe d emblematically as leaffilled branche s hangin g over the stage through al l four acts . Interiors wer e suggested by furniture an d fragmentary sceni c units such as a window with drapes (bu t n o surroundin g walls) . Mor e important , th e atmospher e o f each scene was created through th e use of changing 'ligh t curtains', one of Svoboda's technologica l creations , tha t create d a scrim-lik e effect . Thus , the entir e pla y occurre d i n a fluidly changing , bu t essentiall y unifie d environment. Exterior s an d interior s blende d an d th e externa l worl d wa s always visibly present in the house. 139 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

ARNOLD ARONSO N

The sam e yea r witnesse d simila r approache s fo r th e firs t tim e i n th e Soviet Union. Nisson Shiffrin's deco r for The Seagull (i960) at the Moscow Art Theatre included a surround that depicted trees and the horizon as well as the sk y in bot h exterio r an d interio r scenes ; the interior s containe d n o ceilings and only partial walls. At the same time, tall window drapes, taller than th e rooms, hung in the exterior a s well as interior scenes , creating an ever-present sense of spatial memory or anticipation. For The Seagull at the Tsvilling Theatr e i n Chelyabins k (1979) , designe r Danii l Lide r use d over hanging branches , remarkabl y simila r t o Svoboda's , a s wel l a s a sor t o f curtain hun g o n a clothe s lin e i n hi s design . Th e moti f o f branche s overhanging the stage through exterio r an d interior scene s proved popula r in th e USS R an d coul d b e foun d i n Mikhai l Kurilko' s desig n fo r Uncle Vanya in 1966 at the Kupal Theatre in Minsk and in Enar Stenberg's 196 9 production of The Seagull at the Moscow Art Theatre.20 By 1962 , th e attemp t t o visuall y fus e th e interio r an d exterio r scene s appeared in England at the newly opened Chichester Festival Theatre. Sean Kenny's design for Laurence Olivier's production o f Uncle Vanya consisted of a simpl e woode n bac k wal l wit h tw o window s an d a door . Wit h th e windows blacke d ou t i n th e firs t ac t i t becam e th e garden ; wit h ligh t coming throug h the m th e stag e wa s transforme d int o th e interior s o f th e last thre e acts . Th e grea t innovation , however , wa s th e use , perhap s fo r the first tim e anywhere , o f a thrust stag e for Chekhov . Not onl y were the internal boundarie s destroyed , bu t som e o f th e separatio n betwee n th e stage and the audience seemed to disappear as well, leading a contemporary critic t o not e tha t '[Chekhov's ] peopl e ha d no t bee n mor e closel y allie d to us'. 21 Olivier continue d th e atmospheric , non-Naturalisti c approac h i n hi s famous 196 7 London productio n o f Three Sisters a t the National Theatr e with designs by Svoboda. Here Svoboda's light curtains were replaced by a surround o f stretche d cord s tie d fro m floor t o grid , whil e window-frame s were place d betwee n tw o layer s o f cords . Throug h th e us e o f light , th e cords coul d becom e 'soli d walls , delicat e bars , o r shimmerin g depth s without precis e limit'. 22 Th e cord s als o serve d a s a scree n fo r Svoboda' s trademark projections . Althoug h minima l piece s o f furnitur e wer e em ployed, thi s wa s a n essentiall y abstrac t settin g creatin g a theatrical rathe r than illusionistic environment. By eliminating naturalisti c approache s t o scenography , th e association s that go with it are likewise eliminated an d the stage reasserts itself. It is no longer a n illusion of reality , bu t a n allusion to reality . Walls , door s an d especially window s becom e ephemeral , transformabl e element s which , a s Svoboda noted, are at the heart of Chekhov: 140 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

The scenography of Chekhov Windows are very special things in Chekhov. The thoughts and desires of the characters fl y ou t throug h th e windows , bu t lif e an d it s realitie s fl y i n th e other way. The windows must b e created b y means o f light, lik e that o f the French Impressionists - ligh t disperse d in a i r . .. Th e windows lead us to all of Chekhov' s atmosphere , th e interior s ar e no t bordere d o r limited , bu t diffused.23 Meanwhile, Sovie t directo r Georg y Tovstonogo v ha d expresse d a simila r point o f vie w i n hi s 196 5 productio n o f Three Sisters a t th e Bolsho i Dramatic Theatr e (BDT ) in Leningrad, designe d b y Sofia Yunovich . In ou r production , th e room s i n th e Prozoro v hous e wer e no t delimite d b y walls, ceilings , windows o r doors . Furniture . . . was distribute d ove r al l of our huge stage . A crystal chandelie r hun g ove r the table. Near th e center of the stag e stoo d a lonely Empire column , which supporte d nothing . Sunligh t poured i n through window s place d upstage behin d a gauze which was hung along th e circumferenc e o f th e stage . Th e pla y o f ligh t an d shado w o n th e column (cause d b y branche s swayin g behin d th e windows ) an d th e sof t twittering o f bird s create d th e atmospher e I wanted : spring , peace , an d prosperity. A few minute s afte r th e pla y ha d begu n - mor e precisely , jus t before Vershinin' s entranc e - th e ligh t wa s cu t o n th e window s behin d th e gauze, and they seemed to disappear. In the last three acts, in exactly the same way, there were illuminated windows in the Prozorov house, and a n alley of birches (done three-dimensionally). And they disappeared in exactly the same way a few minutes after th e act had begun. It seemed to me that these threedimensional bits of scenery had served their purpose in indicating the place of action. All they coul d d o further durin g th e course o f th e pla y would b e to distract the attention of the audience from the action itself.24 Tovstonogov als o believe d tha t th e contemporar y audienc e wa s mor e familiar wit h th e experienc e o f films tha n o f th e stati c theatr e an d tha t Chekhov woul d b e mor e comprehensibl e i f stage d i n a cinemati c form . B y using a revolv e an d mobil e platform s tha t projecte d toward s th e audienc e he attempted t o create th e equivalent o f close-ups, pan shots , reverse angle s and th e lik e - th e vocabular y o f th e film whic h constantl y alter s th e orientation o f th e spectator s t o th e scen e t o enhanc e o r replac e th e movement o f actors . Anatoly Efros ' 196 7 production o f Three Sisters a t the Malaya Bronnay a Theatre i n Mosco w wen t eve n furthe r i n fusin g exterio r an d interior . Th e setting wa s reduce d t o nothin g bu t a solitary , stylise d tre e wit h coppe r leaves whic h represente d th e avenu e o f birc h tree s an d als o serve d a s a coat-rack. Th e influenc e o f Samue l Becket t a s th e spiritua l descendan t o f Chekhov was clearly making itsel f felt . The conflatio n o f inne r an d oute r world s ha s continue d t o b e a stron g 141 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

ARNOLD ARONSO N

motif i n Sovie t an d Russia n production s a s see n i n th e design s o f Valer y Levental, Serge i Barkhin , Davi d Borovsky , Mar t Kitaev , Danii l Lide r an d Eduard Kochergin . Though eac h o f these designer s has a unique style , the productions ar e often typifie d b y fragmentary se t pieces or furniture sittin g like icons or islands in the midst o f an open stage ; often natur e is seen not only blendin g wit h th e man-mad e worl d bu t seemingl y overpowerin g it . The latte r i s evident i n Vladimir Serebrovsky' s Ivanov (1978 ) i n Baku , in which the dining room was open to the garden and autumn leaves covered the floor, or Davi d Borovsky' s 197 6 MA T productio n i n whic h branche s and vines overwhelmed the exterior of the house. (See Appendix 4.) The most aggressiv e proponen t o f th e fusion approac h ha s bee n Roma nian-born director Andrei Serban, who has worked since the early 1970s in the United States . In his 197 7 The Cherry Orchard at the Lincoln Center , designed b y Sant a Loquasto , symboli c element s wer e isolate d agains t a luminous backgroun d o f barre n trees , an d th e visua l image s wer e echoe d by symboli c action s suc h a s a plough dragge d acros s a field by peasants. The ballroo m was depicte d a s a structure tha t coul d b e viewed a s either a giant gazeb o o r a s a cage . Th e white-on-whit e colou r schem e suggeste d both a formality an d isolatio n o r barrenness . Despite a negative respons e this productio n receive d fro m th e mor e conservativ e Ne w Yor k critics , i t spawned a hos t o f imitations . Serba n di d a Seagull in Japa n i n 1980 , designed b y Kaoru Kanamori , tha t too k a more romanti c tur n bu t none theless carried on the motif o f a continuous interior and exterior. The inside was suggested by a repetitive row of window-frames that , while reinforcin g Svoboda's remar k abou t th e importanc e o f window s i n Chekhov , func tioned almos t a s an abstract motif. A wood-planked stag e floor unified th e entire stage space. Any hin t o f coldnes s gav e wa y totall y t o th e war m woo d texture s o f Serban's 198 3 Uncle Vanya, als o designe d b y Loquasto . Bu t jus t a s th e symmetrical ro w of windows o f the Japan Seagull worked in opposition to the romanticism o f the wood and trees, the romanticism o f this Vanya was offset b y th e geometri c patter n o f th e groundplan . Th e settin g her e consisted of platforms an d steps with a few pieces of furniture - room s and spatial division s wer e define d b y differin g level s rathe r tha n actua l walls . The idea fo r th e set was generated b y a reference i n the play to the empty house being like a maze. The effect was , according to Loquasto, 'the sweep of a Becket t landscape , bu t on e wher e yo u als o ha d war m woo d an d familiar Chekho v texture s . . . But b y stretching th e space , it too k o n the ascetic serenity of an Oriental walkway as well.'25 Yet anothe r approac h t o th e Chekhovia n sens e o f fluidity has bee n t o create a sens e o f endlessnes s throug h room s an d space s tha t continu e 142 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

The scenograph y o f Chekho v

; The Cherry Orchard, Ac t One, Romanian National Theatr e (1993) , directed b y Andrei Serban, designed b y Santa Loquasto , originally produce d b y the New Yor k Shakespear e Festival at the Vivian Beaumont Theatr e in New Yor k City.

4 The Cherry Orchard, Ac t One, Romanian National Theatr e (1993) , directed b y Andrei Serban, designed b y Santa Loquasto , originally produce d b y the New Yor k Shakespear e Festival at the Vivian Beaumont Theatr e in New Yor k City.

143 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

ARNOLD ARONSO N

beyond the spectator's view, thereby creating a tantalizing maze of off-stag e spaces tha t remai n frustratingl y inaccessibl e t o th e audience . Th e intima tion o f suc h a world i s already presen t i n Three Sisters wit h th e ballroo m visible through columns behin d the drawing room; in The Cherry Orchard where, again , th e ballroo m i s visibl e beyon d th e archwa y behin d th e drawing room, or in the first ac t of The Seagull with the lake hidden behind the makeshift stage . One of the earliest productions to approach the play in this way was the 1969 Cherry Orchard designe d b y Kar l Erns t Herman n i n Berlin . I t employed a classic bo x se t with fain t echoe s o f th e Teatr o Olimpico . The two upstag e door s tha t le d t o th e drawin g roo m wer e place d i n th e bac k wall in such a way that it was impossible for any one person in the audience to see the entirety of the inner room. Furthermore, these doors were echoed in the upstage wall of the inner room. There was an implication o f infinit y - i f thes e door s wer e opene d th e spectator s woul d se e another room , an d another and so on. A 197 0 productio n o f th e sam e play , designe d b y Jiirge n Ros e i n Hamburg, also played with neo-classical perspective, but in a more blatant and unrelentin g fashion . Th e ey e wa s ineluctabl y draw n t o a singl e vanishing poin t throug h a doo r i n a star k bo x set . However , th e neo classicism was softened b y the romanticism of flimsygauze curtains and the warm tones of the walls. John Conklin' s desig n fo r Mar k Lamos ' production o f Three Sisters fo r the Hartford Stag e Compan y i n 198 4 continue d th e sam e basi c ide a - a n upstage space visible beyond the main playing area - bu t Conklin opted for a colde r formality . Th e upstag e opening s coul d b e understoo d a s pillars , doors or windows; the floor of the thrust stag e had a polished surface, thus abjuring the warm textures associate d wit h Chekhov. Beyond the openings was cold, unknown space, a void that could be anything. The elements o f formality, texture , isolated iconographi c piece s and th e implication o f space beyond were epitomised, however , in a 1983 Cologn e production o f The Cherry Orchard designed b y Rolf Glittenberg . This was almost a parody of a box set: towering walls seemingly inspired by Gordon Craig, thoug h texture d throug h th e us e o f wood , dwarfe d th e performer s and th e fe w sceni c element s whic h resemble d th e vestige s o f som e earlie r Chekhovian set . But whil e suggestin g a type o f prison , th e spac e wa s no t impenetrable. Th e rea r wal l coul d spli t open , admittin g brigh t ligh t int o this confined, barre n world, and suggesting a paradisiacal world beyond. A thematically simila r Ivanov wa s designe d b y Mar k Thompso n fo r Elija h Moshinsky's 198 9 Londo n production . A critic describe d th e roo m a s ' a bare and almost windowless cell, like some large prison space . . . The only 144 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

The scenography of Chekhov relief fro m thi s stifling uniformity i s a square hole, a glass-less window cut high in the back wall, through which can be seen a passing vista of blue and white clouds, and where Ivanov's watchful wif e appears.' 26 Chekhov's character s ar e ofte n trappe d i n a lif e o r philosoph y tha t i s represented b y the concrete elements o f a house. The freshness o r freedo m of th e outsid e worl d i s tantalisingl y visibl e ye t inaccessible . Chekho v creates an interior b y describing the exterior. In the settings by Glittenberg or Thompson , however , a formidabl e barrie r i s create d betwee n th e tw o worlds. When Chekho v stated , i n th e quot e tha t begin s thi s chapter , tha t 'yo u have n o fourt h wall' , h e wa s expressin g th e nee d t o acknowledg e th e theatricality o f th e event . Bu t certai n contemporar y production s hav e attempted t o tak e th e breachin g o f th e fourt h wal l mor e literall y an d incorporate the audience, to some degree or other, in the production o r the world o f the play. If this is done successfully, th e spectator i s implicated in the actio n an d th e pla y i s transforme d int o a n existentia l reflectio n o f contemporary society . Needless to say, this is a risky strategy. Any production, whethe r Chekhov' s o r not, tha t incorporate s o r attempt s t o incorpo rate the audience and theatre into the staging, runs into the problem of the clashing world s o f audienc e an d performance . Th e suspensio n o f disbelie f can exten d onl y s o far whe n w e ar e surrounde d an d confronte d wit h ou r fellow patron s an d th e accoutrement s o f th e theatre . Nonetheless , th e environmental theatr e movement o f the late 1960 s an d 1970 s has inspired some attempts . Directo r Andr e Gregor y brough t th e audienc e int o th e setting fo r hi s 197 4 productio n o f The Seagull at Ne w York' s Publi c Theatre, in which the set consisted of furniture an d shrubs, but no walls or even clearl y demarcate d boundaries , se t i n a bifurcate d aren a space . The audience sa t aroun d th e outdoor settin g for th e first two acts , then moved to the other sid e of the stage for th e indoor scene s of the last two acts . An alternative environmenta l approac h wa s take n b y iconoclasti c Sovie t director Yur i Lyubimo v i n Three Sisters a t th e Tagank a (1975) . Th e production bega n with the back wall of the theatre sliding open to reveal a military ban d o n th e stree t outside . Th e shee t meta l wal l the n closed , reflecting the audience back on itself. British director Pete r Brook, a s he has done so often, too k a wide crosssection o f al l thes e trend s an d pu t the m togethe r i n hi s acclaime d 198 7 production o f The Cherry Orchard at th e Majesti c Theatr e i n Brooklyn , New York. 27 The Majestic wa s an abandoned movie palace and vaudeville house tha t wa s onl y partiall y renovate d a s a n anne x fo r th e Brookly n Academy of Music. Fragments o f plaster remained on exposed brick walls, the onc e gaud y pain t o f thi s theatr e coul d b e see n i n fade d patche s o n a 145 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

ARNOLD ARONSO N

decayed ceilin g an d th e prosceniu m arc h hinte d a t it s forme r glory . Th e theatre becam e a perfect metapho r fo r th e Ranevsk y estate . I n th e rathe r cavernous spac e o f th e stage , mad e eve n large r b y a n extensio n ove r th e former orchestr a pit , Broo k an d designe r Chlo e Obolensk y create d dra matic locales through th e use of a few well-chose n objects : a n armchair, a bookcase, a screen, some Persian rugs and a few pillows. The performanc e extended int o th e decrepi t stag e boxe s an d use d th e prosceniu m door s t o suggest entrances to other rooms in the house. It ranged from the back wall of th e theatr e t o th e ver y edg e o f th e thrust . Broo k an d Obolensk y ha d merged the fictional worl d of the characters with the very theatre itself. The genera l tren d o f th e lat e 1980 s an d 1990 s ha s bee n a retur n t o Romanticism - albei t tempere d b y th e ironi c ey e o f contemporar y de signers, a s i n th e wor k o f Greek-bor n Frenc h designe r Yanni s Kokkos , whose Seagull suggests a Simovian scenography filtered throug h an Expressionist aesthetic . (Se e Appendi x 4. ) Bu t a decidedl y anti-Romanti c post modernism ha s als o arisen , nowher e mor e s o tha n i n th e startlin g production o f Three Sisters done b y th e Wooste r Grou p i n Ne w Yor k i n 1991. Entitle d Brace Up!, the piec e wa s a n adaptation/deconstructio n b y Paul Schmidt , directe d b y Elizabeth LeCompte , wit h set s b y James Clay burgh an d light s b y Jennifer Tipton . Performe d i n a converte d industria l space, the Performin g Garage , th e feeling insid e th e theatr e wa s a strang e mixture of stark high-tech and home-made shabbiness. The audience sat on steep tiered plank seating facing a simple platform stag e framed b y lighting towers o n whic h wer e a n assortmen t o f industria l an d fil m lightin g equipment. A n invented character , a master o f ceremonies , addresse d th e audience, interviewed character s an d calle d upo n th e translator (wh o also played Chebutykin ) t o provid e dramaturgica l commentary . Televisio n monitors glided to and from the audience across the stage floor - no t unlike Tovstonogov's platform s - o n which could b e seen live images o f off-stag e actor/characters wh o wer e capture d o n vide o a s the y spoke , on-stag e characters creatin g a visua l ech o o f th e actio n an d interpolation s fro m popular movies . Lik e th e Broo k production , Brace Up! coalesce d th e fictional world with th e physical theatre; the video fused on - and off-stag e worlds as well as the world of contemporary culture with the historicity of the play. By apparently strippin g awa y th e frame o f the stage , it create d a new framewor k i n whic h t o hous e th e pla y fo r th e spectator s an d performers o f a postmodern culture. One hundred years after Ivanov, the adjective 'Chekhovian ' still conjure s a world o f samovars, drawing rooms, old bookcases an d belove d gardens. Yet the nastroenie or mood that Chekho v attempte d t o create through th e implied transparenc y o f walls , fluidity of space , juxtaposition o f nea r an d 146 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

The scenography of Chekhov far an d symboli c us e o f familiar item s wa s a harbinger o f Appia an d Craig , the Surrealist s an d even , t o a degree , Brecht , whos e significantl y charge d props an d se t piece s sa t i n th e mids t o f a stag e void . I t i s temptin g t o contemplate wha t th e landscap e o f twentieth-centur y Wester n theatr e would hav e bee n ha d Chekho v live d an d ha d Adolph e Appi a turne d hi s talents t o Chekhov' s dram a a s well a s to Wagner's operas . The successe s o f the origina l Mosco w Ar t Theatr e production s ar e a testamen t t o th e fac t that Chekhov' s play s worke d - i n thei r tim e - i n Simov' s settings . Bu t th e Chekhovian landscap e ha s not onl y adapte d wel l to the qualitie s o f moder n and postmoder n scenograph y bu t ha s thrived , almos t a s i f i t ha s foun d a more comfortabl e home . Chekhov' s continue d popularit y o n worl d stage s suggests tha t no t onl y th e theme s an d character s remai n relevant , bu t th e visual landscape a s well. NOTES Quotations fro m th e play s com e fro m Anton Chekhov's Plays, trans, an d ed . Eugene K. Bristow, W. W. Norton & ; Company, Inc., New York, 1977. This is noted as B. followed b y page number. Given problem s o f availabilit y o f Bristo w i n th e UK , th e sam e quotation s ar e referenced fro m The Oxford Chekhov, trans, an d ed . Ronal d Hingley , volume 11: Platonov, Ivanov, The Seagull, London , 1967 , and volume in: Uncle Vanya, Three Sisters, The Cherry Orchard, The Wood-Demon, London, 1964 . This will be noted by H. followed b y volume number and page number. 1 Anto n Chekho v in rehearsal, quote d b y Vsevolod Meyerhold i n Meyerhold on Theatre, trans, and ed., Edward Braun, New York, 1969, p. 30. 2 The Cherry Orchard, Act Three, B. p. 195; H. vol. in, p. 179. 3 Stev e Grant, 'Uncle Vanya', Plays and Players, July 1988, p. 19. 4 Vikto r Simo v (1858-1935 ) - primar y designe r fo r th e Mosco w Ar t Theatr e who designed the original productions of Chekhov's plays at the MAT. 5 Quote d in Frantisek Deak, Symbolist Theatre, Baltimore, 1993, p. 144. 6 Quote d in Siegfried Melchinger, Anton Chekhov, New York, 1972, p. 65. 7 Adolph e Appia (1862-1928 ) - Swis s theorist an d designer whose ideas revolutionised theatr e an d oper a desig n b y replacin g th e Romanti c Realis m o f th e nineteenth century with suggestive, three-dimensional settings , often employin g steps and platforms, and stages sculpted with light. 8 Uncle Vanya, B. pp. 64-5; H. vol. in, p. 30. 9 Adolph e Appia , 'Idea s o n a Refor m o f Ou r Mise en Scene,' in Richar d C . Beacham, ed., Adolphe Appia: Essays, Scenarios, and Design, trans., Walther R. Volbach, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1989, p. 106. 10 The Cherry Orchard, B. p. 165; H. vol. in, p. 145. 11 The Three Sisters, B. p. 144; H. vol. in, p. 124. 12 The Seagull, B. p. 5; H. vol. 11, p. 233. 13 Constanti n Stanislavsky, My Life in Art, New York, 1952, pp. 353-4 . 14 Quote d in Anton Chekhov's Plays, trans, and ed., Bristow, p. 159. 15 Quote d in Nick Worrall, ed., File on Chekhov, London, 1986, p. 70. 147 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

ARNOLD ARONSO N

16 Quote d i n Braun, Meyerhold on Theatre, 1969 , p. 26. 17 Ibid., p . 30. 18 Quote d i n Worrall, File on Chekhov, p . 71. 19 Edwar d Gordo n Crai g (1872-1966 ) - Britis h theorist , directo r an d designe r best know n fo r emblemati c an d symboli c setting s tha t conveye d a sens e o f grandeur while strippin g awa y the realism o f nineteenth-century theatre . 20 Se e Viktor Berezkin, Khudozhnik v teatre Chekhova, Moscow , 1987 , pp. 8 4 - 5. 21 J . C. Trewin, Illustrated London News, 2 8 July 1962 , p. 154. 22 Jark a Burian , The Scenography of Josef Svoboda, Middletown , Conn. , 1974 , P- 4923 Ibid., pp . 49-50 . 24 Georg y Tovstonogov , 'Chekhov' s Three Sisters a t th e Gork y Theatre' , The Drama Review 13.2 , 1968, p. 153 . Se e chapter 15 , and Glossary. 25 Quote d i n Arnol d Aronson , American Set Design, Ne w York , 1985 , pp. 113-14 -

26 Nichola s d e Jongh, 'Ivanov', The Guardian, 4 April 1989. 27 Pete r Brook' s Cherry Orchard originate d fro m wor k a t hi s Pari s theatre , Le s Bouffes d u Nord , i n 1981 . Thi s derelic t forme r operett a theatr e serve s a s Brook's bas e for his 'Theatre o f Nations'. The production toure d t o Moscow, a s well as New York. See chapter 15 , Glossary an d Appendix 2 .

148 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

PHILIP FRENC H

Chekhov o n scree n

Although Anto n Chekho v wa s onl y thirty-si x whe n th e cinem a wa s invented, seriou s film-makin g di d no t begi n i n Russi a unti l a coupl e o f years afte r hi s death . So , unlik e hi s contemporarie s Maxi m Gork y (si x years hi s junior ) an d Georg e Bernar d Sha w (fou r year s hi s senior) , wh o both too k a passionate interes t i n the possibilitie s o f th e new medium, h e did no t liv e t o se e hi s wor k reac h th e screen . Hi s niec e however , Olg a Chekhova, a sculptres s wh o emigrate d t o Germany , appeare d i n F . W. Murnau's Schloss Vogelod (1921) an d Ren e Clair' s Un Chapeau de paille dTtalie (1927) , an d hi s nephew , Michae l Chekhov , enjoye d considerabl e success in America as both teacher and actor, his most celebrated role being the psychotherapist t o whom Ingrid Bergman takes Gregory Peck in Alfred Hitchcock's Spellbound (1945). As earl y a s 191 1 ther e wa s a one-ree l Russia n comed y base d o n Chekhov's stor y 'Romanc e wit h Doubl e Bass' , directe d b y Ka i Hansen . (The Britis h comedia n Joh n Clees e directe d an d appeare d i n a n amusin g British versio n o f thi s tal e i n 197 4 wit h hi s the n wife , Conni e Booth. ) I n 1914 Bori s Glagoli n mad e movies o f Illegal an d The Daughter of Albion, and in 1917 Boris Sushkevich filmed The Flowers Are Late.1 Meanwhile, in 1913, Vladimir Mayakovsky evoked the playwright's name in the magazine Kine-Journal in an article called 'Theatre , Cinema, Futurism': 'Th e theatre moves toward s it s ow n destruction , an d hand s ove r it s heritag e t o th e cinema. An d the cinem a industry , branchin g awa y fro m th e naive realis m and artific e o f Chekho v an d Gorky , open s th e doo r t o th e cinem a o f th e future - linke d to the art of the actor.' 2 Whether or not they took their cue from Mayakovksy , the movie makers of th e Sovie t cinema' s Golde n Ag e pai d littl e attentio n t o Chekhov . I n 1926, whil e specialisin g i n film s fo r children , Olg a Preobrazhenskay a directed Kashtanka, which wo n he r th e opportunit y t o mak e picture s fo r adults. But the first majo r Sovie t production base d on Chekhov was Yakov Protazanov's Ranks and People (1929) , a n adaptatio n o f 'Ann a o n M y 149 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

PHILIP FRENC H

Neck', 'Deat h o f a Petty Official' an d 'Chameleon', 3 a pioneer example of the portmanteau movi e or film a sketch, that wa s to become so popular in the 1940 s an d 1950s . A decade passed , however , befor e Chekho v movie s began to flow from th e Russia n studio s and , a s th e historia n o f Russian cinema Jay Leyda point s out , flow from th e film schools, where his stories became th e favourit e subject s fo r graduatio n films. There wer e numerou s adaptations o f the shor t comi c play s know n a s vaudevilles an d o f the stories, th e most celebrate d bein g b y Isidor Annensky , whos e severa l Chekhov films includ e The Man in the Case (1939) . Th e onl y majo r director to take an interest in Chekhov at this point was Sergei Gerasimov, though sadly his plans to make a biographical study of the writer ( T dream of showing in this film the meaning of modesty in combination with talent, of wha t result s it gives in huma n life' 4) di d no t com e to fruition. I n fact there wa s n o truly importan t Sovie t adaptatio n o f Chekhov unti l i960 . Oddly enough , i n the Unite d State s ther e wa s a major movi e thoug h it attracted little attention at the time. In 1937, the Danish-born Detlef Sierck , a man of the political left wit h a Jewish wife , abandone d a promising caree r i n the Germa n cinema , emi grating to Hollywood vi a Switzerland , Franc e an d Holland . O n arriva l he changed his name to Douglas Sirk, and while he was to become one of the most commerciall y successfu l director s o f his day , seriou s critica l recogni tion in the English-speaking worl d did not come until the 1960s , by which time his Hollywood caree r wa s at an end an d h e had returne d t o wor k in the Germa n theatre . Sirk' s so n b y his first marriage, Clau s Detle f Sierck , one of Germany' s mos t handsome chil d stars , remained a t home when his father emigrated . After appearin g in six movies Claus died fighting with the Wehrmacht o n th e Easter n Fron t in Marc h 1944 , thre e week s befor e hi s nineteenth birthday . This touchin g piec e o f biographica l informatio n i s by no mean s incidenta l t o Sirk' s work, an d especiall y hi s first two America n projects, a s his son' s deat h precede d b y thre e month s th e releas e o f his Chekhov movie. Sirk was a master of melodrama, a genre he employed to study character, expose hypocris y an d examin e socia l an d spiritua l aspirations . Afte r a couple o f year s i n the States makin g documentarie s an d working on aborted projects , h e got the chance to work wit h a team of fellow emigres and refugees o n two moderately priced independent productions . The first, shot i n a wee k an d then amplifie d wit h MG M money , wa s Hitler's Madman (1942) , th e story o f the assassination o f Heydric h an d th e destruction o f Lidice. Th e secon d wa s Summer Storm (1944) , a screen version of The Shooting Tarty, Chekhov's onl y novel , publishe d i n 1884, excluded fro m th e 1899-1901 ten-volum e editio n o f his works, and 150 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov on screen translated onl y once into English (i n 192 3 by A. E. Chamot an d revised in 1986 b y Julian Symons) . This was not a standard Hollywoo d production . Sirk had initially developed it at the Ufa studi o in Germany (wher e he had also done a screen treatment o f William Faulkner's Pylon, which he finally filmed a t Universal as Tarnished Angels in 1958). In Chekhov's novel, a former provincial magistrate presents a manuscript to a Moscow magazin e (edite d b y Chekhov himself ) i n 1880 , agreein g t o return three months later to receive the editor's verdict. It is the story of the cynical narrator' s involvemen t wit h a dissolut e Count , owne r o f a vas t decaying estate , an d ho w the y bot h becom e th e lover s o f th e beautiful , ambitious Olga , daughte r o f a n insan e woodcutter , afte r sh e ha s marrie d the Count's middle-aged bailiff. During a shooting party Olga is murdered, the instrumen t use d bein g a Caucasian knif e give n he r b y the Count . He r alcoholic husban d come s o n th e scen e wit h bloo d o n hi s hand s an d a drunken, one-eye d peasant i s discovered with bloo d o n his tunic. The oneeyed peasan t i s murdere d i n th e loca l jai l (seemingl y b y Olga' s husband ) and, a s a double-murderer, Olga' s widower i s sentenced t o nineteen years' hard labou r i n Siberi a an d apparentl y expire s o n th e outwar d journey . Early o n i n th e narrative , th e editor' s footnote s (signe d 'A.Ch.' ) questio n the tex t i n a manner characteristi c o f eighteenth-centur y fiction, bu t no w called Borgesian or postmodern. We are also in the presence of what Wayne Booth calls 'the unreliable narrator'. 5 Like Agatha Christie's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, The Shooting Party i s narrate d b y th e kille r himself . Chekhov's stor y contain s bot h hi s confessio n an d a n arrogan t defianc e o f society, fo r h e believe s onl y a fe w superio r soul s wil l b e capabl e o f recognising the clues that revea l his guilt. Thus he will go free, alon g with the weak-willed Count , who is sitting in a carriage outside , ready to share the money from th e sal e of th e tale . The stor y doe s not quit e ad d up , but Julian Symon s in his introduction t o th e 198 6 edition persuasivel y argue s for it as 'a landmark in the history of the crime story'. The modestl y budgete d movi e versio n o f Summer Storm wa s mad e i n that brie f wartim e perio d betwee n 194 2 an d 194 5 whe n America an d th e USSR wer e allie s an d Hollywoo d too k a benig n vie w o f th e Russia n Revolution. Th e presen t tim e become s 191 9 an d th e stor y i s tol d i n a n extended flashback to 1912 . But a s adapte d b y Sirk, i t i s the Coun t wh o brings th e manuscrip t t o th e offic e o f a newspaper i n Kharkov, wher e the editor is not only a woman of the new Russia but also the fianceewhom the Judge had betrayed when he became infatuated wit h the peasant girl Olga. The Count , playe d b y th e priss y Edwar d Everet t Horton , a specialis t i n camp valets and waiters, is comically conscious o f being an outsider i n the USSR an d payin g fo r hi s (an d hi s class' ) pas t sins . The Judge i s imperso-

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

PHILIP FRENC H

nated b y the suav e Britis h actor , Georg e Sanders , wh o wa s bor n i n S t Petersburg o f British parent s an d spen t th e firs t te n year s o f his lif e in Tsarist Russia . Durin g th e movi e h e sings a song i n fluent Russian. H e brings a proper arroganc e t o the par t an d is able to suggest th e Judge' s inner conflicts . H e als o refer s t o the comin g Revolutio n tha t wil l swee p them all away. As Olga, Linda Darnell, an actress best known for her sultry temptresses, i s merely adequate , an d a s her derange d father , Si g Ruma n reprises hi s comi c commissa r fro m Erns t Lubitsch' s Ninotchka. Bu t th e movie i s stron g o n mood (Sir k pu t aside hi s first script , writte n in collaboration wit h Jame s M . Cain , becaus e it had becom e to o American ised) and has dramatic power and moral ambiguity. At the end of the film, when the Judge discovers that the Count has sold his manuscript , h e hurries t o the newspaper offic e t o discover tha t his former fiancee has put it in an envelope addressed to the public prosecutor. But expectin g hi m t o come , sh e ha s no t poste d it , an d sh e give s hi m th e opportunity t o d o this himself . Wit h a nic e touch , tha t reveal s the protagonist's divide d characte r whil e also meeting the requirements o f the Hollywood Productio n Code, 6 th e Judge first post s th e package, the n attempts to retrieve it from th e postman and is shot dead by the police afte r a chase through th e streets . He dies on the floor of a cafe, referrin g i n his last gas p t o 'th e heavenl y electricity ' (i.e . th e lightning tha t ha d kille d Olga's mothe r an d b y whic h sh e hersel f ha d expecte d t o be killed) . Th e final shot i s of a wastepaper baske t containin g hi s fiancee's dance car d which sh e threw awa y the night th e Judge betraye d he r an d whic h he has carried ever since as a guilty memento. Summer Storm, though a box-office success , was not well received at the time. Th e Britis h Fil m Institute' s Monthly Film Bulletin (1945 , p . 131) concluded snootily : 'T o blam e Chekho v fo r an y par t o f thi s cliche-ridde n collection o f th e shallo w an d th e commonplac e i s taking mea n advantag e of a dead author. ' Althoug h th e Irish poet James Simmon s was inspired in the 1970 s t o write a mocking comic poem about it ('Summer Lighting ' in his Poems 1956-1986) posterit y has been kinder to it and the movie is now widely regarde d a s a minor classic . In hi s Biographical Dictionary of the Cinema (1994 ) Davi d Thomso n acclaim s 'Summer Storm, a poignan t dramatisation o f Chekhov's The Shooting Party with Georg e Sander s as one of Sirk's finest "weak interesting" men'. The first truly outstanding Russian Chekhov film came in i960 when the veteran Josef Heifetz , the n i n hi s mid-fifties , adapte d 'Th e Lad y Wit h th e Little Dog' , a scrupulously faithfu l versio n o f the tal e o f the lov e affai r between tw o unhappily marrie d middle-clas s peopl e - a middle-age d government officia l (Alexe i Batalov ) an d a young woma n (Iy a Savvina ) 152 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov on screen who meet at a resort hotel beside the Black Sea. Shot in elegant black-and white, th e fil m recreate s th e lat e nineteenth-centur y worl d wit h immens e subtlety, contrasting the summery Yalta with the wintry Moscow where the lovers hav e a reunion. Th e sadness , yearning, repressio n an d brie f libera tion are captured in the landscape and architecture; the eroticism is implied with the camera turnin g awa y at the bedroom door . Heifetz demonstrate d that th e leisurel y expansio n o f a shor t stor y wa s a bette r wa y t o mak e a feature fil m tha n th e contractio n o f a lon g novel , an d hi s movi e wa s universally acclaimed as the screen's best adaptation of Chekhov up to that point. Three years later h e filmed anothe r Chekho v story , 'I n the Town of S', abou t th e frustration s o f a docto r i n a torpi d provincia l town , whic h attracted favourabl e review s bu t wa s regarde d a s les s satisfyin g tha n th e earlier film . Unlik e The Lady With the Little Dog, i t di d no t becom e a permanent addition to the art-house canon. It wa s probabl y th e succes s o f Heifetz ' movie s tha t finall y persuade d Soviet director s t o tur n thei r attentio n t o th e grea t Chekho v full-lengt h plays, beginnin g i n 196 4 whe n Samso n Samsonov , wh o ha d wo n a Silver Prize in Venice for his version of Chekhov's 'The Grasshopper', made a film of Three Sisters, wit h Le v Ivanov a s Vershinin, Konstanti n Soroki n a s Dr Chebutikin, an d Lyubov Sokolova , Margarit a Volodin a an d Tatyan a Mal chenko as Olga, Masha an d Irina. The play was opened out for the screen, and th e tex t wa s severel y cu t (th e philosophica l speeche s disappearin g almost entirely ) rathe r tha n rewritten . I t was not highl y regarde d an d di d not fin d a distributo r i n th e West , an d i n fac t ther e wer e tw o Britis h adaptations before the next Soviet ones. In 196 8 th e American directo r Sidne y Lumet, wh o ha d mad e a n admir able jo b o f filmin g Eugen e O'Neill' s A Long Day's Journey Into Night (1962), turned hi s attention t o The Seagull, workin g wit h a largely British cast an d cre w i n Sweden . A s Arkadina , Simon e Signore t i s a trifl e uncomfortable, bu t o n the principl e tha t i t take s a star t o pla y a star sh e brings convictio n t o th e role , an d James Maso n (Trigorin) , David Warne r (Konstantin) an d Vanessa Redgrave (Nina ) ar e excellent. The movie opens with the disconcertingly bold touch of showing Trigorin sharing Arkadina's bed, but is otherwise a faithful transcriptio n o f the play (Moura Budberg is credited as translator an d adaptor) until the final scene where Lumet makes a majo r change . D r Dorn' s speech , i n whic h h e conceal s Konstantin' s suicide fro m Arkadina , i s dropped , an d th e film ends wit h th e assemble d company al l awar e o f th e appallin g even t tha t ha s jus t take n plac e i n the room next door. Lumet's The Seagull did no t ope n i n Britai n unti l earl y i n 1970 , a fe w months befor e Laurenc e Olivier' s film o f Three Sisters, als o usin g a 153 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

PHILIP FRENC H

translation b y Moura Budber g which retain s fa r mor e o f the origina l tex t than th e Samsono v film . Thi s wa s substantiall y a screen versio n o f the memorable 196 7 Nationa l Theatr e productio n wit h a modified for m of Josef Svoboda' s stage sets and lasting 165 minutes. Olivier himself plays Dr Chebutikin, Alan Bates (replacing Robert Stephens) is Vershinin, with Joan Plowright, Jeanne Watts and Louise Purnell a s Masha, Olg a an d Irina. On only two occasions does Olivier depar t significantly fro m th e stage version. First, for a rather flat fantasy sequenc e before Ac t Four when Irina (Louis e Purnell) dream s o f a beautiful futur e i n Moscow; second , whe n a flash forward t o the fatal due l is cut into the final dialogue between Irina and the Baron. In the final moments, a s the sisters stan d togethe r wit h Chebutiki n reading nearby , a few bar s o f the Internationale can b e hear d fro m th e distance, a hint o f things to come. The best that ca n b e said for th e filmis that it preserves (i n a ponderous, slightl y misleadin g form ) a classic stag e production. In th e Sovie t Unio n i n 1971 Yul i Karasi k filmed The Seagull, which eventually reache d th e West bu t mad e n o grea t impression . Thoug h ofte n pictorially strikin g (especiall y i n the stagin g o f Konstantin' s awfu l pla y in Act On e wher e th e curtai n part s acros s th e widescree n t o revea l th e lak e beyond), th e film is heavy withou t bein g weighty , a lugubrious, low-ke y movie tha t misse s th e original's iron y an d wit . Rathe r bette r i s Andrei Konchalovsky's Uncle Vanya, also mad e in 1971, with a formidable cas t led b y Innokent y Smoktunovsk y a s Vany a an d Serge i Bondarchu k a s D r Astrov. But even with a much cut text it moves with a ponderousness quit e absent fro m Londo n production s o f the time see n at the National Theatr e and th e Roya l Court , an d fo r no apparent reaso n th e movi e alternate s between a n attractive sepi a ton e an d a fuzzy, ofte n ill-li t colour. Indicative of the change o f emphasi s i s the substitutio n o f a handful o f snapshot s of the neglected poor for th e elaborate ecological charts that Astrov shows to Yelena. W e first se e some o f these picture s i n a scene-settin g montag e evoking th e privilege d pleasure s an d genera l miser y o f pre-revolutionary Russia. Significantly, Konchalovsk y lef t Russi a i n the 1980 s fo r Hollywoo d (h e was the first Soviet directo r t o find success there), an d it was his younge r brother, th e actor-directo r Nikit a Mikhalkov , wh o became , afte r Heifetz , the Sovie t cinema' s principa l directo r o f Chekhov . Mikhalkov' s mos t popular movi e in the West has been the Russo-Italian co-production , Dark Eyes (1987), based on several Chekhov stories, but mainly 'The Lady With the Little Dog', which won for Marcello Mastroianni the Best Actor Award at Cannes . If Konchalovsky's picture s ar e lik e recklessl y heate d pressur e cookers o n the point o f blowin g thei r tops , hi s brother's ar e closely

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov on screen watched pot s tha t steadil y simmer . Dark Eyes unfold s a s th e romanti c reminiscences o f th e middle-class , middle-age d Italia n Romano , onc e a prosperous ma n o f leisure , no w a waite r o n a ferr y boa t i n th e Adriati c shortly befor e Worl d Wa r One . Romano meet s a n elderl y Russia n honey mooner and proceeds to regale him with his life and loves. As a young man he had ambitions to transform th e world as an architect. Instead he marries a Roman heires s an d become s a pathetic, philandering playboy . But a t a n Italian spa he falls in love with a beautiful, unhappil y married Russian and when sh e suddenl y depart s h e pursue s he r t o he r remot e provincia l tow n under the pretext of setting up a glass factory there. The fil m i s visuall y ravishin g i n a sub-Viscont i fashio n wit h a liltin g Francis La i score . The pace i s funereal, th e humour leade n an d th e poeti c evocation o f Mothe r Russi a a serie s o f soft-focu s cliche s fo r th e expor t market. Mastroianni, who in addition to the Award at Cannes got an Oscar nomination, doe s a near-parodi c variatio n o f hi s self-pityin g passiv e amorist, but Silvana Mangano is superb as his chilly patrician wife. Far mor e interestin g tha n Dark Eyes i s Mikhalkov' s earlie r film , An Unfinished Piece for Mechanical Piano (1976). 7 Subtitled 'Themes from the works o f Anto n Chekhov' , th e sourc e i s almos t entirel y Chekhov' s first , unnamed play, discovered in 1920, published in 1923 and usually known in English a s Platonov. 8 Thi s vast , ramblin g text , writte n aroun d 1881 , contains th e principa l themes , situation s an d character s o f hi s late r play s and would take ove r six hours to perform uncut . Mikhalkov ha s shaped it into a 100-minut e fil m tha t take s plac e o n a singl e summe r da y o n th e estate o f Anna Petrovna , a general's youngis h widow , who is being visited by her wea k stepso n an d hi s wife , th e actres s Sofy a (Elen a Solovei) . Her guests, in addition to a couple of local landowners, are the drunken retired Colonel Triletzky , hi s docto r so n an d hi s simpl e daughte r Sasha , wh o i s accompanied b y he r husband , th e thirty-five-year-ol d Mikhai l Platono v (Alexander Kalyagin) , a village schoolteacher . A s a student, Platono v ha d had a passionate summer affair wit h Sofya, bu t seeing him after a n absence of seven years she fails to recognise this overweight, disappointed man who had onc e bee n spoke n o f a s a future ministe r o f stat e o r th e secon d Lor d Byron. With great humour and sadness, the film charts the relationships between this large cast over the course of a day and night as they reflect o n the past and contemplat e th e future . Th e ol d lov e betwee n Sofy a an d Platono v i s rekindled, threatenin g two marriages an d leading to a suicide attempt, bu t ending in a stoic acceptance of things as they are. Clever emblematic use is made o f th e player-pian o tha t give s th e movi e it s title , a machin e tha t performs Lisz t unaccompanied , an d sound s exactl y th e sam e whoeve r 155 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

PHILIP FRENC H

whether poe t o r peasant - play s upo n it . Among th e numerou s way s in which Mikhalkov' s screenpla y differ s fro m th e 198 4 versio n o f Platonov that Michae l Fray n mad e fo r the Nationa l Theatr e a s Wild Honey i s the substantial rol e that Frayn accord s t o Anna Petrovna . The succes s o f Mikhalkov's fil m bear s ou t some remark s mad e i n my original review o f Olivier's Three Sisters for The Times (3 0 October 1970) : Frankly th e pictur e - fo r al l it s manifes t respectabilit y an d understandabl e reverence fo r th e text - strike s m e as a misguided enterprise , confirming th e belief that Chekhov' s full-length play s (unlike his fiction) are unfilmable. This has somethin g t o do with thei r perfectio n a s theatre. O f course, a bol d cinematic geniu s migh t b e prepared t o throw awa y th e tex t entirel y an d attempt to re-create a Chekhov play from scratch as a movie.

An Unfinished Piece for Mechanical Piano goes som e wa y toward s that , and a simila r kin d o f boldnes s inform s th e most interestin g Chekho v pictures of the past decade or so. There ar e firs t thos e movie s tha t w e migh t describ e a s Chekhovian works that , b y desig n o r chance , resembl e Chekho v in mood , them e an d dramatis personae. Satyajit Ray' s Days and Nights in the Forest (1969), the story of four youn g middle-class me n spending the summer a t a bungalow in th e Bengal i countrysid e an d comin g int o contac t wit h a wealthy loca l family, remind s mos t audience s o f Chekhov . Interestingly , Andre w Robinson i n his critica l biograph y Satyajit Ray: The Inner Eye (1989 ) remarks o f Ray's transposition t o Bengal of An Enemy of the People: 'Th e introduction o f the temple int o th e stor y is Ray's masterstroke: It enabled him to turn Ibsen into Ray - via Chekhov.' Much mor e specificall y Chekhovia n i s Louis Malle' s Milou en Mai (1989), th e elegia c stor y o f the fina l gatherin g o f a French famil y o n a decaying estat e i n south-west Franc e a s les evenements of 196 8 swee p through th e country . The declinin g vineyar d evoke s The Cherry Orchard; the eponymou s middle-age d Milo u (Miche l Piccoli) , wh o ha s thanklessl y devoted his life to keeping the estate going, is a Vanya figure, an d virtually all th e character s hav e Chekhovia n counterparts . I n Nikita Mikhalkov' s Burnt by the Sun (1994), one of the finest Russian movies of the 1990s and winner o f an Oscar a s Best Foreig n Languag e film , th e directo r himsel f plays a middle-aged ex-colonel , a hero of the Russia n Revolutio n wh o is living in a rural communit y outsid e Mosco w i n 1936 . It is as if Lopakhin, the self-mad e businessma n i n The Cherry Orchard, ha d married int o Ranyevskaya's household an d they were living idyllically o n the old estate. In fact ther e ar e specifi c reference s t o sho w that th e characters themselve s recognised the parallels with Chekhov. But this is the time of Stalin's purges 156 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov on screen and when the secret police arrive to escort the Colonel to the Lubianka an d a sho w trial , Uncle Vanya turns int o Darkness at Noon. I n America, th e Swedish actres s Vivec a Lindfor s mad e he r fina l appearanc e i n Henr y Jaglom's Last Summer in the Hamptons (1995) , a charmin g an d deepl y moving film about a New York theatrical famil y tha t gathers every August with thei r friend s a t a bi g hous e o n Lon g Islan d t o moun t a pla y i n th e gardens. This is to be the last production befor e the house is sold, the piece chosen i s The Seagull and th e directo r i s playe d b y Andr e Gregory . Al l involved identif y themselve s wit h Chekhov' s characters , thei r behaviou r echoes th e pla y an d th e fil m conclude s wit h a fraugh t bu t successfu l production. Secondly, there are the films that rework the text of the plays. In the early 1990s, two central European director s made new versions of Three Sisters. Margarethe von Trotta, who in such films as The German Sisters and Rosa Luxemburg has pursued feminist theme s more thoughtfully tha n anyone in mainstream cinema , transpose d Three Sisters to th e entrancin g norther n Italian town of Pavia in the early 1980s. Her Olga, Masha and Irina are the stunningly beautifu l daughter s o f th e loca l university' s lat e recto r - Veli a (Fanny Ardant) , a libera l professo r o f literature ; Mari a (Gret a Scacchi) , wife o f a popula r T V comedian ; an d Sandr a (Valeri a Golino) , a medica l student. Thei r Vershini n i s Massimo, a handsome astrophysicist , recentl y returned from a decade teaching in the United States. The twists are minor, but ingeniou s - Massim o i s Velia' s love r befor e switchin g t o th e sad , married Maria ; hi s neglecte d wif e become s a friend , a feminis t siste r indeed, o f Velia an d Sandra . Od d detail s ar e amusin g - th e bore d Maria , for instance , watche s th e soulfu l Now Voyager instead o f he r husband' s tedious TV show. Elegant tracking shots follow the tastefully dresse d ladies around th e cit y an d th e autumna l countrysid e an d n o on e coul d wis h t o leave thi s idylli c plac e fo r Rom e o r Milan . Chekhov' s pla y i s a tragi comedy or comic tragedy, while von Trotta's emotionally shallow, ideologically trendy movie is merely designer-angst. Potentially a fa r bette r adaptatio n i s th e youn g Hungaria n film-make r Andor Lukats' Three Sisters (1992 ) which transposes the play to a Russian barracks i n a remote corne r o f Hungar y i n th e lat e 1980 s an d conclude s with the final withdrawa l o f Soviet forces i n 1991. The text is pared dow n and does not see m to have been fully though t throug h in terms of the new situation, bu t a n importan t change , o f considerabl e significanc e t o loca l audiences, i s tha t Masha' s patheti c schoolteache r husban d i s no w a Hungarian, whic h i n itself make s hi m a n inferio r bein g i n the eye s o f hi s wife an d he r sisters . Stylisticall y fa r remove d fro m vo n Trotta' s version , Lukats' film has a deliberately bleak, sickly look and the hand-held camera 157 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

PHILIP FRENC H

is constantl y o n th e mov e aroun d th e claustrophobi c barracks , usin g a wide-angle lens to distort perspectives so that walls and corners loom up at us menacingly. The movie is an oppressive, wearing experience, but I would not wish to make a definitive judgement afte r havin g seen it only once with a somewhat inadequat e ear-phon e commentary. (Th e same, incidentally, is true o f the 197 8 version o f The Shooting Party directed b y Emi Lotianou, of whic h I sa w on e excitin g un-subtitle d ree l durin g a displa y o f th e director's work in Moscow.) The most distinguished films of the plays have been the versions of Uncle Vanya recreate d i n differen t settings . I n Country Life (1995) , Michae l Blakemore, on e o f th e Britis h theatre' s finest exponent s o f Chekhov , transposes Vanya to a decayin g estat e i n remot e Ne w Sout h Wale s an d himself take s th e rol e o f Alexandr e Serebryakov , wh o ha s becom e Alexander Voyse y ( a par t intende d fo r Nige l Hawthorne) , a middle-age d Australian write r returnin g hom e (rejecte d a s i t transpires ) afte r twenty two years as a drama critic in London. The year is 1919, Australian troop s are comin g bac k fro m th e Europea n Wa r an d Alexander' s famil y suffer s from that famous 'cultura l cringe' before al l things English, with London as their equivalen t o f Moscow . Hi s youn g Englis h bride , Debora h (Gret a Scacchi, who acted in Blakemore's London stage version o f Vanya and von Trotta's film o f Three Sisters), turn s th e hea d o f Uncl e Jac k (Joh n Hargreaves), who has sacrifice d himsel f t o running th e estate, an d attract s the loca l genera l practitione r D r Aske y (Sa m Neill) . Chekhov's sad , plai n Sonya becomes Sally (Kerry Fox), hopelessly in love with Askey, protective of Uncle Jack, and the embodiment of selfless decency. Blakemore ha s fashione d th e pla y t o highligh t Australia n theme s whil e retaining a Chekhovia n ton e an d ironi c humour . Thu s D r Askey/Astrov' s concern fo r ecolog y extend s t o allowin g Aborigine s t o squa t o n his land , and hi s belie f i n th e shapin g o f a loca l identit y ha s le d hi m t o oppos e Australian participatio n i n th e Grea t War . I n a ke y sequence , angr y ex soldiers wrec k th e churc h hal l wher e Aske y i s giving a lantern lectur e o n the environment. In the farewell scen e between Astrov and Yelena in Vanya she take s a pencil a s a souvenir ; i n Country Life D r Aske y an d Debora h sneak a final kiss in the house's fancy lavatory (claime d b y Jack a s the first flush toilet i n this part o f the country), an d when h e accidentally tear s of f the chain-handl e h e present s i t t o he r a s a memento . Thi s i s bot h a wonderfully Australia n gestur e an d a marvellousl y Chekhovia n under mining of sentimentality. The film'sensemble acting is impeccable. August (1995) is a transposition of Uncle Vanya to the culturally isolated North Wale s o f th e 1890 s wher e gradation s o f clas s ar e registere d b y accent, ranging from the strong Welsh dialect of the workers to the received 158 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov on screen pronunciation o f the English visitors. The screenplay is by Julian Mitchell, and th e fil m i s directe d b y Anthon y Hopkins , wh o himsel f play s th e middle-aged failure , Uncl e Leuan . Th e frustrate d conservationis t an d GP , Dr Lloyd (Gawn Grainger), tends to the poverty-stricken workers from th e local slat e quarries , an d h e i s worshippe d b y Sia n (Rhia n Morgan) , wh o helps Uncl e Leua n ru n th e famil y estate . Th e intruder s fro m th e distan t metropolis wh o disrup t th e househol d becom e th e selfish , self-centre d Professor Blathwait e (Lesli e Phillips) , a loathsom e Englishma n fro m London, an d hi s secon d wife , Hele n (Kat e Burton) , a n America n fro m Philadelphia wh o look s a s if sh e might hav e bee n painte d b y John Singe r Sargent. Hopkins plays Leuan not as a sad, burnt-out man of mature years but as an angry , age d adolescen t wh o ha s resiste d growin g u p an d i s foreve r larking aroun d an d pullin g face s behin d people' s backs . I n a heavil y cu t text, h e end s u p dominatin g th e pla y i n a wa y tha t th e Vany a i n Blakemore's film doesn't. Consequently, the movie never quite achieves that ensemble effec t b y which on e judges a perfectly realise d Chekho v produc tion. Bu t a t th e end , i n a self-abnegator y gesture , Hopkin s almos t with draws from th e scene, his head buried in his hands, leaving the stage to his niece. As Sian/Sonya, Rhia n Morga n give s a poignant performance . Mos t Sonyas are so attractive that you wonder ho w Dr Astrov could have faile d to notic e them , an d a s if i n awarenes s o f thi s th e actresse s emphasis e th e character's rura l gaucheness . Morgan , o n th e othe r hand , i s neatl y self contained and has a plainness that makes the doctor's indifference credible . But in close-up her eyes express a buried passion and a deep spirituality. Far mor e remarkabl e tha n either , however , an d arguabl y th e greates t screen Chekho v i s Vanya on 42nd Street (1994) , th e fina l fil m o f Loui s Malle, who died the following year . For nearly forty years , Malle fruitfull y combined complementar y career s a s a documentaris t an d a directo r o f feature films . I n 1981 , he brough t th e tw o side s togethe r i n My Dinner With Andre, a n artfu l movi e purportin g t o b e a dialogu e i n a New York restaurant betwee n the avant-garde theatre director Andre Gregory and the actor Wallac e Shawn . I t wa s i n fac t carefull y scripte d an d mad e wit h immense car e i n a n improvise d studi o i n Washingto n DC . Gregor y an d Shawn are also involved in Vanya on 42nd Street, which presents itself as a discreetly observe d documentar y recor d o f a run-through o f Uncle Vanya (in a fluent American versio n b y David Mamet ) a t th e cavernous , disuse d New Amsterdam Theatre , built a t the turn-of-the-century an d onc e one of Broadway's finest houses. Starting i n 1990 , Andre Gregor y an d hi s actor s intermittently rehearse d thi s productio n fo r severa l year s bu t neve r pre sented i t t o th e public . Onl y a t th e en d d o w e ponde r precisel y wha t w e 159 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

PHILIP FRENC H

have seen . Is this Vanya a work-in-progress? I s it the definitive accoun t of something tha t neve r foun d a final form ? O r i s it a fresh creatio n fo r th e cinema, something existing in a ghostly limbo between stage and screen? We first se e the cast making their way through the raffish sidewal k crowd on 42n d Street . The y ar e accompanie d o n th e soundtrac k b y a cool jaz z quartet, a kind o f music associate d wit h Mall e eve r sinc e h e persuade d Miles Davi s t o improvis e a score fo r hi s firs t feature , Lift to the Scaffold (1957). Approaching the theatre, Gregory meets Wallace Shawn, who is to play th e titl e role , an d take s a piece o f th e hamburge r he' s eating. Shaw n introduces hi m t o a Mr s Cha o (th e India n actres s an d cook , Madhu r Jaffrey), daughte r o f Chekhov's Bengal i translator. Mr s Cha o is , in effect , the film's onl y fictional character , an d it is to her that Gregor y explains the play durin g th e brief intervals . A s the stage o f the Amsterda m i s to o dangerous to be performed on , the actors work in the theatre's gutted stalls, wearing thei r stree t clothe s an d usin g a table, a bench an d a few chairs . They are like Pirandellian ghosts, arising to bring an old play back to life. Phoebe Bran d (a s the old Nanny) an d Larr y Pin e (D r Astrov) cha t informally a t a table abou t thei r curren t wor k an d w e scarcel y notice th e precise moment whe n they switc h fro m theatrica l small-tal k t o Chekhov' s opening lines , fro m playin g themselves , a s it were, to playing Chekhov' s characters. Mall e work s clos e i n to the actors , mor e ofte n cuttin g tha n panning. The lighting is harsh, but not grainy in a self-conscious documen tary manner . Whil e th e pla y i s in progress, Mall e neve r cut s to the smal l audience, who only appear between acts. There is nothing obviousl y o r obtrusively avant-gard e abou t Gregory' s production or Malle's film. But the result is highly innovative. They succeed in making us experience in a new way Chekhov's great story of unrequited love, shattere d dreams , lie s an d truth-telling , selflessnes s an d stoicism. Rarely have Brechtian alienation techniques been used to greater effect. 9 While constantl y bein g kep t awar e o f seeing a company o f New Yor k actors at work in the 1990s , we become painfully engage d in the problems and aspiration s o f the lat e nineteenth-centur y Russia n character s the y ar e playing. Withou t transposin g Uncle Vanya t o th e United State s o r wrenching it from its historical context, Malle gives us, in effect, a moderndress, demotic , America n Chekhov . Ye t n o cheaply ironi c parallel s are drawn betwee n th e actor s an d thei r stag e roles , an d Mall e an d Gregor y resist th e temptation t o modulate (lik e Olivier's Henry V) into a full-scale production with authentic decor on rural locations. The cast is flawless.Julianne Moore is a strong, tragic Yelena. Her scenes with Sonya (th e heartbreaking Brooke Smith) have a rare intimacy. George Gaynes, hitherto bes t know n a s th e ditherin g commissione r i n th e Police 160 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov on screen Academy serie s an d th e agin g matine e ido l smitte n b y Dusti n Hoffma n i n Tootsie, bring s a revealingl y ligh t touc h t o Professo r Serebryakov . Larr y Pine's Astro v recall s Jason Robard s Jr . a t hi s best , an d Wallac e Shaw n i s a magnificently unsentimental , bitterl y comi c Vanya . A t th e en d w e fee l w e have watched , becom e closel y involve d in , wha t i s a t onc e a n astonishin g piece of theatre an d an authentic cinematic experience . NOTES r Se e 'Variations of English titles', Appendix r . 2 Ja y Leyda , Kino - A History of the Russian and Soviet Film, Londo n (firs t published i960), r
r6r Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

14 TATIANA SHAKH-AZIZOV A

Chekhov o n the Russia n stag e

Chekhov i s often internationall y considere d 'th e Shakespear e o f the twen tieth century'. In his homeland, hi s plays have become part an d parcel not only o f the Russian theatr e bu t als o of th e national lifestyl e o r psyche, an inexhaustible sourc e o f spiritua l endurance . W e tak e thi s s o muc h fo r granted tha t w e assum e tha t i t ha s alway s bee n so , bu t thi s i s no t a n accurate view: Chekhov's climb to the stature of the author o f The Seagull and The Cherry Orchard wa s lon g an d difficult , whil e th e proces s o f creating Chekhov's theatre was even more laborious and painful . In literal terms, the history of Chekhov in the Russian theatre dates back to autum n 1887 , whe n hi s comedy , Ivanov, was premiere d a t th e Kors h Theatre, a private theatr e i n Moscow. In the following decade , theatres in Moscow, S t Petersbur g an d i n th e province s produce d almos t everythin g the young Chekho v wa s energeticall y writin g fo r th e stage . Although thi s may seem a good beginning, this period in Chekhov's career as a playwright should more appropriately be seen as a prologue. Both Chekhov's full-length play s and the 'miniatures' or short plays were produced with varying degrees of success. He described the one-act plays as 'jokes' or 'little scenes' and in letters referred t o them as 'vaudevilles' which were initiall y an d subsequentl y widel y performe d - an d wit h invariabl e success. The secret of their success was clearly evident: Chekhov introduced many change s t o th e conventiona l vaudeville : omittin g th e traditiona l couplets, addin g 'true-to-life ' features , an d ridiculin g th e traditional plots , often t o th e poin t o f absurdity , whil e basicall y observin g th e rule s o f th e genre (Letters, vol. 11 , p. 148). 1 Actors and audiences alike were fascinate d by th e sharpl y delineate d characterisation , fas t dialogu e an d irresistibl e comicality o f thes e plays . Afte r th e premier e o f The Boor [mor e usuall y translated i n Englis h a s The Bear] at th e Kors h Theatre , Chekho v com mented: 'Th e audienc e wa s laughin g nonsto p an d th e performanc e wa s interrupted b y bursts of applause . . .' But at the same time he assessed the acting a s 'clumsy' , 'non-artistic ' an d 'lackin g subtlety' . (Letters, vol. in , 162 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov on the Russian stage p. 50) , while the performers a t the Alexandrinsky Theatre' s productio n of The Bear le d Chekho v t o observ e that : 'Actor s neve r see m t o watc h ordinary people . . .' (Letters, vol. in, p. 291), a serious criticism. Chekhov's critiqu e reflected a n essential disagreemen t betwee n hi s theatrical aesthetic s an d th e prevailing stag e customs, which accepte d artificia l and careles s performance , whil e Chekho v presumabl y expecte d muc h greater precisio n an d finesse. Another illustratio n o f thi s disparit y wa s i n the reactio n t o Chekhov' s full-lengt h plays . Th e earlies t o f the m wa s untitled (late r appearin g i n repertoires unde r th e title Platonov, or Fatherlessness), unpublishe d an d unperforme d i n Chekhov' s lifetime . Th e youn g writer brough t th e pla y t o th e Mal y Theatr e an d wa s turne d down , apparently i n unpleasan t terms . Th e Mal y Theatre' s justificatio n fo r thi s depended not only on mistakes resulting from hi s inexperience, but mainly on the unusual lengt h o f the play, and its explicit an d quite unprecedente d outspokenness in exposing public behaviour. Also unique was the combination o f scepticism an d cynicism in the central character , the village schoolteacher Platonov, with his powerful ques t for justice. Platonov was rejected by the theatre, an d instea d Platonov' s plac e was taken b y Ivanov, anothe r complex man, both in himself and in relation to others. Ivanov ha d mor e luc k tha n it s predecessor , no t onl y becaus e o f Chekhov's developin g professionalis m an d dramati c skills , bu t mainl y because o f th e brillian t performanc e o f Vladimi r Davydo v a s th e titl e character. H e portrayed Ivano v as an average Russian intellectual: benign , soft-hearted an d weak-willed . Th e production' s ver y success , however , virtually resulted in scandal: the sharp and grim plot, the central question s - deliberatel y lef t unanswere d b y th e autho r (question s suc h a s wh o is Ivanov o r wh o i s responsible fo r hi s misfortunes?) wer e found fascinatin g by some - an d seemingly revolted others. As for Chekhov's own view of the production, h e criticise d i t fo r it s lac k o f precisio n an d fo r directoria l mistakes. Th e subsequen t histor y o f Chekhov' s play s i n performanc e demonstrated the validity of these criticisms. After th e Moscow premiere, Chekhov rewrote the play, classified i t as 'a drama', sharpene d th e conflic t an d th e character s an d provide d tragi c dimensions t o th e characte r o r 'image ' o f Ivano v - fo r whic h reaso n h e changed th e final scene . I n th e meantime , an d contrar y t o hi s usua l approach, he explained at great length, and persistently, the meaning of the play in his letters (Letters, vol. in, pp. 109-16), something which he never did before o r subsequently, and clear evidence of his need to be understood. The ne w version , produce d a t th e Alexandrinsk y Theatre , wa s mor e successful an d ha d a bette r audienc e response . Nonetheless , Chekhov' s complex an d contradictor y characterisatio n o f Ivanov , a man lackin g 'th e 163 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

TATIANA SHAKH-AZIZOV A

energy o f life' , remaine d fo r man y year s on e o f th e moder n theatre' s greatest enigmas. And for year s after th e play was first staged , Ivanov was repeatedly criticise d fo r bein g unstageable , an d it s autho r accuse d o f amateurism. Such accusations becam e more persistent whe n the Abramov Theatre in Moscow (another private theatre) produced Chekhov' s comedy The WoodGoblin (usually translated a s The Wood-Demon) in 1889 . The production had little, if any, success in its very short run, while even the author himself disliked hi s play. It had tw o feature s whic h were quit e uncharacteristic o f Chekhov's play s an d neve r recurre d i n an y o f hi s othe r dramati c works : romantic rhetoric - an d a happy ending. The difficulty o f combining drama and pros e with a n epi c qualit y i n th e sceni c element s (i n hi s letters , Chekhov significantl y referre d t o The Wood-Goblin a s a 'comedy-novel' ) made the play too heavy. The prose, and the over-abundance of characters, details an d situations , took th e play over . However, the experience o f The Wood-Goblin was not wasted and became the source of a new play - Uncle Vanya (1896). But before that, in 1895, there was The Seagull. The 1890 s wer e extremel y eventfu l fo r Chekhov . Hi s talent s a s a dramatist becam e muc h mor e mature , h e gaine d mor e freedo m an d courage, an d h e eagerly imbibe d ne w trend s i n the arts . Chekho v create d The Seagull - th e pla y late r t o becom e th e symbo l and th e mirro r o f twentieth-century theatre . Bu t tha t wa s ye t t o happen . Unti l then , an d sharing th e fat e o f man y innovativ e artists , Chekho v ha d t o endur e th e shattering fiasco o f The Seagull's premiere at the Alexandrinsky Theatre in Autumn 1896. Chekhov's dramati c innovation i n The Seagull was daring. He wrote the play 'against al l the rules of dramatic art' (Letters, vol. vi, p. 100), and yet strongly hope d fo r success . He especially counte d o n the actres s wh o was cast t o pla y Nin a Zarechnay a an d wh o rehearse d he r par t wit h aw e an d enormous poeti c powe r - Ver a Komissarzhevskaya . Sh e woul d late r b e named 'th e Seagul l o f th e Russia n stage' , give n th e resemblance s betwee n the personalitie s an d fortune s o f th e actres s an d he r character , an d thei r combined fate. 2 Bu t eve n Komissarzhevskay a coul d no t preven t th e pre miere fro m bein g a disaste r (Letters, vol. vi , p . 231) . Th e failur e o f th e production seeme d to b e the result o f a mistake an d muddle: the premiere had bee n schedule d o n th e sam e da y a s a benefi t performanc e fo r a particular comi c actress, and the audience was therefore expectin g to have fun an d moc k The Seagull. Bu t tha t i n fac t coul d no t hav e bee n th e rea l cause. The Seagull was doome d t o fail . Th e ol d conservative , traditiona l stage failed to pass the test set by the new drama. The play required carefu l direction, innovative preparation and special performance techniques . 164 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov on the Russian stage In one of his letters Chekhov wrote: 'I didn't d o the casting. No new sets were made . Ther e ha d bee n onl y tw o rehearsal s an d th e actor s kep t forgetting thei r lines . Th e resul t wa s genera l pani c an d tota l depression . Even Komissarzhevskaya wa s not half as splendid as she had been in one of the rehearsals. . .' (Letters, vol. vi, p. 211). The powerful moo d of disaster and th e reactio n o f bot h audienc e an d critic s wer e suc h tha t Chekho v vowed: 'Never again shall I write o r direct plays' (Letters, vol. vi, p. 197). He di d no t believ e h e ha d a chanc e o f succes s an d h e wa s right : succes s could come only with the new theatre. An encounter with suc h a theatre - th e Moscow Art Theatre - wa s soon to come. 3 Wit h th e MAT , Chekho v a t las t discovere d a communit y o f spirit, me t understandin g an d regaine d th e opportunit y t o restor e hi s reputation a s a dramatic writer. It was for th e MAT that he broke his vow and wrot e tw o ne w plays : Three Sisters (1900) an d The Cherry Orchard (1903).

This alliance created prerequisites for the emergence of directors' theatre, which affirme d th e importanc e o f everythin g tha t happen s o n stage , whether 'internal ' o r 'external ' truth , wher e actor s performe d a s a n ensemble an d wher e characterisatio n wa s expecte d t o matc h th e comple x and integral image of reality, of the world outside the theatre. This was the period o f perfec t harmon y betwee n actor s an d characters , stag e an d auditorium. Chekhov's plays were staged, performed an d attended by those who wer e themselve s 'Chekhovians' . Lif e depicte d i n thes e play s wa s familiar t o them , fo r i t wa s their life an d the y wer e abl e t o articulat e i t confidingly, simply , wit h genuin e pai n an d concern . Thes e production s owed thei r char m t o a distinctiv e lyricism , an d a n inspire d moo d o r atmosphere. I t migh t appear , therefore , tha t i n thi s wa y an d only i n thi s way coul d Chekhov' s play s b e stage d an d hi s character s performed . Bu t this has not been the case. Chekhov's plays have already had a long life, responding and adapting to the dramati c change s o f thei r context , whethe r theatrica l o r social . The y contain 'messages ' to be discovered and meanings to be expressed by other generations. This 'otherness' - th e alternative t o the established MA T style - wa s for a long time only theoretical, an d not put into practice. Until the middle o f thi s century , Chekhov' s play s wer e viewe d exclusivel y i n th e context o f th e MA T production s whil e th e MA T remaine d th e mai n Chekhovian theatre . Bu t thi s reputatio n ha d t o b e re-examine d an d reaffirmed, whic h the company has only recently done. In Chekhov' s lifetime , an d i n th e firs t decade s o f th e twentiet h centur y his plays were widely stage d acros s the country b y both metropolita n an d provincial companies . Bu t trouble d time s wer e fas t approaching . I n th e 165 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

TATIANA SHAKH-AZIZOV A

Soviet Russia o f the 1920 s an d 1930 s Chekhov' s plays did not fi t wit h the predominant ideolog y o f socia l optimism . Th e publi c fel t increasingl y alienated from Chekhov' s drama an d productions o f his plays became rare: The Seagull was produced onl y once, Ivanov and Three Sisters each twice, while Uncle Vanya was not stage d a t al l (excep t fo r th e reconstruction o f the ol d MA T production). 4 The Cherry Orchard was playe d mor e often , but mainly becaus e it proved mor e easily adaptabl e t o predominant socia l tastes. History repeate d itself : Chekhov' s vaudeville s wer e swiftl y gainin g i n popularity, largel y a s a resul t o f th e effort s o f suc h MA T 'offshoots ' a s Yevgeny Vakhtangov an d Vsevolod Meyerhold . I n the earl y 1920s , Vakhtangov dreame d abou t givin g grotesqu e shap e t o th e tragi c an d comi c elements. H e wrote : ' I wan t t o d o The Seagull. Theatrically. A s i t wa s conceived b y Chekho v . . . Chekho v i s no t a lyricist, h e i s a tragedian.' 5 Vakhtangov di d no t stag e The Seagull, but a t hi s studio , whic h late r became know n a s th e Thir d Studi o o f th e MAT , h e twic e produce d The Wedding. The staging was sharp, vigorous, eccentric an d a t the same time filled no t s o muc h wit h mocker y a s wit h bitte r compassion . Meyerhold' s 1935 productio n o f 33 Fainting-Fits (sometime s translate d a s 33 Swoons) at th e theatr e bearin g hi s name , clearl y lacke d tha t shar p contras t o f bitterness an d satire . I n Chekhov' s thre e shor t plays , Jubilee (sometime s translated a s The Anniversary), The Bear and The Proposal, Meyerhold counted 'thirty-thre e fainting-fits ' b y the characters. Under this title, rather than interpretin g a n existin g scrip t a s a director , h e create d hi s ow n composition wit h faintin g a s th e ke y 'gag' . An d th e performanc e becam e overloaded with comic effects. There had bee n a time when Meyerhold performe d Treple v in the MAT production o f The Seagull an d h e clearly felt som e inner affinit y wit h this character. Meyerhold' s directoria l caree r bega n wit h a provincial produc tion o f Three Sisters in 1902 . Bu t thirt y year s late r h e maintaine d tha t 'Chekhov, with his The Cherry Orchard or Three Sisters, is remote from us today."5 Sovie t clas s theory , applie d t o th e art s an d literature , arouse d suspicion about the very nature of Chekhov's characters with their predilection for meditation, reluctance to act and inability to struggle. But the n time s change d again . Discarde d value s wer e 'rehabilitated ' o r came bac k int o fashion , an d wit h i t th e rediscover y o f Chekho v wa s i n sight. This happene d i n the sam e place an d i n the sam e way a s before : i n 1940, th e MA T stage d Three Sisters and reaffirme d th e immortalit y o f Chekhov's character s an d th e author's reputatio n a s a writer fo r al l times. In th e trouble d pre-wa r an d wa r years , renewe d production s o f Three Sisters became symboli c o f th e nation' s spiritua l resistanc e t o th e ruthles s 166 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov on the Russian stage and evil external powers. And the challenges of time and fate became more intense. Th e 194 0 productio n o f Three Sisters lacked th e tragi c anguis h that woul d b e discovere d late r i n Chekhov' s plays . That 'other ' Chekhov , with tints and colours that were absent from the lyrical staging of the MAT, was abou t t o arrive . Thi s 'otherness' wa s create d b y Alexande r Tairov' s 1944 productio n o f The Seagull a t th e Kamern y Theatre , whic h wa s remarkable fo r it s highl y stylise d staging , an d th e unforgettabl e perfor mance o f Alis a Koonen , wh o mad e he r Nin a Zarechnay a a profoundl y tragic character, waging a hopeless struggle in life and art. 7 This tragi c elemen t wa s als o strongl y presen t i n Bori s Dobronravov' s performance i n the title role of Uncle Vanya in the 194 7 MAT production, as wel l a s i n Bori s Smirnov' s performanc e i n th e titl e rol e o f Ivanov i n Maria Knebel's 1955 production at Moscow's Pushkin Theatre. Throughout the 1950s, the MAT style was waning: the internal resources for self-renewa l wer e exhausted, an d it gradually lost its powerful gri p on the interpretation an d production style of many plays, including Chekhov's. Timed fo r Chekhov' s centennia l (i960) , th e MAT' s productio n o f The Seagull was heavy and cold, demonstrating indifference an d routine. But at the sam e time the Moscow Mal y Theatre, which had no t previousl y don e any o f Chekhov' s majo r plays , opene d wit h a n energetic , passionat e an d innovative productio n o f Ivanov, directe d b y Bori s Babochkin , wh o als o appeared in the title role. Babochkin's production continued once again the tradition o f stripping the play of the romantic colouring tha t went bac k to the productions o f Dobronravov and Smirnov. It seemed Babochkin felt no sympathy fo r hi s character, althoug h th e scal e of Ivanov's personality wa s given full range and recognition. 'Throughout the play Ivanov is falling into an abyss and there is no way of saving him.'8 Austerity, vigour an d strong tragic elements were the defining character istics o f th e productio n interpretation s o f Chekhov' s play s i n th e 1960s . This wa s ho w hi s work s wer e see n b y director s o f differen t school s an d different generations , usin g th e 'mirrors ' o f th e differen t plays . Th e ol d masters wer e th e first to go : Babochkin wa s followe d b y Georg i Tovsto nogov. I n hi s 196 5 productio n o f Three Sisters, at Leningrad' s Bolsho i Drama Theatre, the sisters were presented as tragic characters, gripped by a paralysis of the will. This tragic element was compellingly conveyed by the actors, an d Tovstonogo v a s directo r pushe d the m 't o sharpe n al l th e conflicts tha t advance the action'. 9 It is interesting that the audiences of the mid-1960s could not grasp what Chekhov' s contemporaries identifie d wit h instantaneously: wh y can' t th e sister s g o t o Moscow ? B y the mid-1960s , such question s ha d t o b e explaine d an d performed - i n thi s wa y th e underlying o r subtextua l ide a o f th e pla y ha d t o b e emphasise d an d 167 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

TATIANA SHAKH-AZIZOV A

expressed. The Prozorovs' world , ligh t and clea r in the beginning , becam e cold and grim by the end, as though all life had drained out of it. Symbol an d imager y becam e centra l t o th e ne w Chekho v theatre . I n Maria Knebel' s 196 5 productio n o f The Cherry Orchard at th e Centra l Soviet Arm y Theatre , Moscow , th e desig n n o longe r represente d a rea l house o r orchard . Onl y th e whit e curtains , fluttering lightl y lik e th e characters' memorie s o r dreams , were used t o suggest the orchard . I n this period o f 'angr y Chekhov' , thi s productio n seeme d unusuall y sof t an d restrained, but reference to the present day was contained in the characters' quiet an d melancholi c escap e fro m day-to-da y realities . Th e character s aroused interest not because of their socia l status, or class as merchants or aristocrats, bu t b y thei r huma n characteristics : the y wer e quit e simpl y fascinating people. The reactio n o f th e cultura l authoritie s - traditionall y suspiciou s (an d not altogether without grounds) of innovative interpretations o f the classics as manifestation s o f dangerou s fre e thinkin g - wa s b y this tim e virtuall y absent. The main reason was that these innovative versions were the work of recognised grand masters whos e challenge t o tradition wa s not particu larly daring. What they offered wa s an innovative view of the past - and of people in that past . But 'next in line' were the younger artist s who needed Chekhov's drama to speak for themselves about their time. Thus Anatoly Efros' 10 extensiv e Chekhovian cycle opened with the 1966 production o f The Seagull at th e Lenko m Theatr e i n Moscow . Th e focu s and emphasis was on the sharp conflicts i n that play on such contemporary problems a s alienation , th e disconnectio n o f huma n relationship s an d loneliness. The loneliness o f the artis t wa s a personal moti f fo r Efros , an d the protagonis t i n hi s productio n wa s Treplev : young , defenceles s an d betrayed by all, even by Nina Zarechnaya, and whose tragic ending seemed inevitable. Th e reactio n t o The Seagull was nothin g compare d t o th e stormy respons e t o Efros ' 196 7 productio n o f Three Sisters at Moscow' s Malaya Bronnaya Theatre. The production wa s compellingly expressive of painful foreboding , o f anguish , youn g hope s an d bitte r disappointments . Characters an d spectator s wer e th e sam e peopl e - sharin g th e sam e tim e and space , th e sam e aspiration s an d th e sam e disappointments . Thei r homes ha d lon g cease d t o b e fortresses , wer e lon g los t i n th e void , surrounded b y the withered orchard . These people lived on an island, with cold winds blowin g through it , waiting for thei r fate and , i n the director' s concept, the fate o f people in exile. It was 'the exile of beautiful, intelligen t people'.11 Suc h wa s Efros ' thinkin g an d interpretation , readin g th e pla y and perceiving the world aroun d him , debarred fro m cultur e an d aestheti c expression and deprived of normal life. 168 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov on the Russian stage The production expresse d th e spiri t o f the time. The post-war 'thaw ' i n Russia12 wa s coming to an end and the hopes it had arouse d proved to be delusions. The ol d value s coul d onl y b e talked abou t wit h iron y - an d in Efros' productio n ther e wa s muc h iron y an d anguish . It s messag e wa s perceived by those in the audience who shared the director's thoughts, and by thos e who , a t tha t time , ra n th e theatres . Chekho v wa s becomin g dangerous, but the classics cannot reall y be accountable, s o the blame was placed o n the director wh o had allegedl y distorte d a classical masterpiece . Efros' productio n ha d a ver y shor t run , an d wa s the n censored , bu t it s message has continued up to the present day. The next generation t o come to Chekhov's theatre shared the sentiments of Efro s an d hi s audience . Leoni d Heifetz' s 196 9 productio n o f Uncle Vanya at the Central Soviet Army Theatre was permeated with sad irony. 13 The narrow openin g of the stage was the realm or area of 'unfreedom' o r a 'prison', wher e peopl e wer e crammed , gaspin g fo r fres h air . Thi s lac k o f freedom ha d sucked dry the soul of Uncle Vanya, and aroused young Sonya to protest, an d i n those tw o character s o f differen t generation s th e young spectators recognised their fathers an d themselves. Thus wit h th e beginnin g o f th e 1960s , th e Chekho v theatr e underwen t truly revolutionary changes , however bizarr e this may sound in relation t o this seemingl y mos t peacefu l o f Russia n playwrights . Bu t thi s playwrigh t became a rea l 'trouble-maker' , provokin g upheaval s i n consciousnes s i n particular, an d i n th e art s i n general . Th e ol d norm s an d dogma s cam e tumbling down, and there was an intensive search for new forms. The time chose Chekho v t o expres s itself . An d i t i s this , i n part , whic h make s th e analogy between Shakespeare and Chekhov. In a Soviet writer' s nove l on e o f th e character s says : 'Chekhov's wa y is the wa y o f Russia n freedom , th e embodimen t o f th e Russia n democracy , true an d humane , which never took shape.' 14 Thi s refer s t o Chekho v a s a person and writer, but it may also be fully applie d to his theatre. In Russia's distinctive context, theatre has always longed and struggled, spontaneousl y and persistently , fo r th e freedo m o f the individua l an d freedo m o f expression. Thi s tendenc y starte d durin g 'Th e Thaw ' an d continue d i n th e following decade s up to the present. Democracy called for equality, and so the MAT was bound to lose its monopoly, but not just to another 'monopo list'. Henceforth, n o one theatre had the privilege to monopolise Chekhov . Chekhov offere d equalit y o f right s an d opportunitie s t o al l theatres , regardless o f rank o r artisti c style . The MAT also had the right t o partak e in this opportunity, and when the time came, it exercised this right. Thus in the mid-1970s, Oleg Yefremov manage d to re-energise the MAT and restore its reputation, thereby creating precedents for the realisation of 169 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

TATIANA SHAKH-AZIZOV A

Chekhovian projects . Yefremov' s intentio n wa s to brin g Chekho v bac k t o his native stage, but to do so in the spirit of the new times and on the basis of new knowledge, combined with what, in the MAT, is called the 'grain' of tradition. Another aspec t o f democrac y is the balance betwee n the capital an d the provinces i n stagin g Chekhov' s theatre . Fo r som e tim e Chekho v wa s essentially a metropolitan author , bu t littl e b y little th e province s - wher e in fac t al l o f Chekhov' s play s ar e se t - gaine d mor e right s an d mor e recognition. Ther e ar e Chekho v Festival s hel d regularl y i n th e writer' s birthplace, Taganrog , an d i n th e 1980 s thes e Festival s demonstrate d tha t innovative an d unexpecte d vision s coul d com e fro m Siberia , fro m th e modest republi c o f Kalmykia 15 o r fro m th e industria l centr e o f Lipetsk . Such diversity, inherent i n Chekhov's plays , is the main sourc e of freedo m in his theatre. This portrait change s with the times: lyrical an d melancholy Chekhov, sarcasti c Chekhov , wis e Chekhov , crue l Chekho v . . . al l thes e features are present in the writer, and time chooses the one that suits it best. But the image becomes complete only when the span is the whole century. Chekhov's play s tak e turn s t o becom e symbols of the time. In the mid 1970s i t wa s th e tur n o f Ivanov, i n Mar k Zakharov' s Lenko m Theatr e production, whic h combine d grotesqu e representatio n o f the socia l milie u with a seriou s treatmen t o f th e mai n characters . Yevgen y Leono v playe d Ivanov a s quit e a n ordinar y man , 'no t renowne d fo r extravagance' , soft hearted, hones t an d ashame d o f livin g withou t belie f o r purpose . Ole g Yefremov's Chekhovia n cycle at the MAT also began with Ivanov in 1976. As director and actor, Innokenty Smoktunovsky 16 discerned in this play the drama o f consciousness and the tragedy of a remarkable man, 'the Russian Hamlet', doomed to loneliness and misunderstanding.17 These two productions raised an important proble m of that time: the problem or question of belief, o f th e 'genera l idea ' tha t th e bes t people , whethe r outstandin g o r quite ordinary, cannot find - an d without which they cannot live. Another moti f tha t permeate d staging s o f The Cherry Orchard in th e 1970s wa s tha t o f eterna l values , whethe r beauty , oppresse d b y pragma tism, o r suc h notion s a s home , family , tradition s o r th e past . I n Anatol y Efros' 197 5 productio n o f The Cherry Orchard at th e Mosco w Tagank a Theatre, th e pas t wa s symbolise d b y th e whit e branc h hangin g ove r th e stage; by the family portraits, and by the cross on the family graveyard. The style of the production was energetic, rapidly paced, with an abundance of farcical effects , i n th e centr e o f whic h wer e tw o tragi c figures . Fo r th e elegant an d ironi c Ranevskaya, represente d b y Alia Demidova i n the style of Ar t Nouvea u an d th e aesthetic s o f Russia n Decadence , th e rui n o f th e cherry orchard was the collapse of the (her) world. And next to her was the 170 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov on the Russian stage man wh o ha d unwittingl y betraye d her , wh o belonge d neithe r t o th e ol d nor th e ne w times , an d wh o wa s tormente d b y inner conflicts . Lopakhi n was performed b y Vladimir Vysotsky 18 with almos t Shakespearea n power . Here th e cherr y orchar d cease d t o b e merel y a natura l phenomeno n bu t became symboli c o f essentials , o f th e elements . I t n o longe r ha d t o b e literally represente d o n stage , for it s meaning an d it s fate wer e written o n the faces of people. Valentin Pluchek , a t th e (Moscow ) Satir e Theatre , directe d The Cherry Orchard in the style of a chamber performance, jus t indicating the orchard by light-and-shadow pla y and concentratin g o n 'the inne r orchards ' o f the characters, first and foremost Lopakhin, sadly and ironically represented by the acto r Andre y Mirono v a s a wise, loving , understandin g ma n withou t the power to change anything. In the 1980s , it wa s the tur n o f Three Sisters. Yur y Lyubimov's 19 198 1 production a t th e (Moscow ) Tagank a Theatr e wa s shar p an d sometime s clumsy, an d di d no t entirel y brea k awa y fro m tradition . Th e pas t wa s created b y the image o f ol d Moscow outsid e th e theatre , expressed i n the recorded voices of actors from production s of the Moscow Art Theatre and the Bolsho i Dram a Theatr e (i n Leningrad , no w S t Petersburg) . Bu t no w everything wa s quit e different : th e audienc e ha d change d an d s o had th e actors. The large mirror downstage , placed a t a n angle to the auditorium , reflected bot h performer s an d spectators , showin g ho w simila r the y wer e and ho w differen t fro m thos e wh o cam e befor e them : anothe r epoch , another atmosphere , othe r value s an d morals . Thus th e seemin g romanc e of the military, quartered in a provincial town, gave way to the grim image of barrack s existence : the resonanc e o f th e roug h an d appallin g realit y of the Afghanistan war . In 1982 , Three Sisters was produce d b y bot h Efro s a t th e Malay a Bronnaya Theatr e an d b y Galin a Volche k a t Moscow' s Sovremenni k (Contemporary) Theatre. Both had personal reasons for their choice. Efros' memories o f hi s ol d censore d productio n stil l rankle d an d h e wante d t o recreate the story of the sisters with young actors. Volchek was preoccupied with the problem o f the fate an d situatio n o f women, a female interpretation but not a 'feminist' one. In thi s wa y eac h o f Chekhov' s play s ha s take n it s tur n a t becomin g symbolic o f th e time , excep t fo r The Seagull which ha s weave d it s wa y through th e entir e century , reflectin g th e stam p o f th e times , trend s i n theatre and the individual experience s o f the artists. It is, in itself, virtually about the sources of conflict, struggl e and progress in the theatre world. The conflict surroundin g The Seagull originally started in the late 1960s. Boris Livanov's romantic and elevated version, emphatically detached fro m 171 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

TATIANA SHAKH-AZIZOV A

the 'boredo m o f everyda y life ' a s presente d a t th e MA T i n 1968 , wa s clearly a reactio n t o Efros ' 'rough ' interpretation . The n Ole g Yefremo v responded with the intentionally down-to-earth rendering of the play at the Sovremennik i n 1970 , a s a n unseeml y stor y o f th e struggl e o f pett y ambitions - an d the egos of small-minded selfis h people . And the response to that version was to come later, initiated by Yefremov himself. By the mid-1970s, Russian an d als o international theatr e were swept by a wav e o f production s o f The Seagull, reflectin g th e repentanc e o f yester day's Treplev s - th e forme r avant-gard e artisti c rebel s wh o the n gav e u p their protest to favour th e establishment and the mainstream - an d became sterile. Alexander Vilkin' s 197 8 productio n a t the Mayakovsky Theatr e in Moscow becam e a bitter an d aci d commentar y o n thi s issue . In contrast , Oleg Yefremov' s 198 0 productio n a t th e MA T was a n attemp t t o recon struct th e play' s poetry . Afte r hi s first experience , th e directo r no w journeyed throug h th e play, soake d i n its poetry, an d time , no doubt , ha d also mad e hi m wiser . H e brough t bac k t o th e stag e th e beautifu l an d enigmatic world o f nature an d looked a t the people in it with compassion , understanding an d confidence . A t th e Lenko m Theatr e i n Leningrad , Gennadi Oporko v ha d als o begu n b y presenting The Seagull as th e cold , grim and lifeless worl d o f 1973 , but b y 1982 he changed this world into a poetic an d mysteriou s environment , create d o n a smal l stag e whic h wa s shared by both audience and performers. So for a quarter o f our century, beginning in the 1960s , developments in Chekhov productio n gathere d momentum , irrelevan t t o 'external ' factors , whether anniversarie s o r socia l changes. The source s for sceni c interpreta tions were found i n Chekhov's plays, his prose and letters. Chekhov was a writer fo r theatr e and film, fo r dram a and music . Almos t al l Russia n directors wen t throug h hi s 'schoo l o f theatre'. While sceni c artist s create d the ric h an d fantasti c visua l world s o f th e plays , th e actor s foun d i n th e characters the opportunity for self-expression , an d anticipated the compassionate respons e o f the audience . And then, suddenly , everything stopped . Froze. Perestroika, whic h ha d begu n i n th e mid-1980s , stimulate d interes t i n other writers , an d othe r literar y an d dramati c genres . Everyon e wa s fascinated b y literature whic h ha d bee n censore d an d wa s now available . New classics , lik e th e wor k o f Andre i Platono v o r Mikhai l Bulgakov , pushed Chekho v an d othe r 'old-timers ' int o th e background . A s i n th e 1920s an d 1930s , there was the sense that Chekho v wa s not a relevant o r useful writer . Thi s impression , however , wa s a delusion - an d short-lived . What had seeme d a complete brea k turned ou t to be only a natural pause. When it was over, the theatre began its slow but steady return to Chekhov. 172 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov on the Russian stage The first evidence came at the beginning of the nineties an d was related t o the searc h fo r socia l resonances . Yury Yeremin, havin g lon g worked wit h Chekhov's prose , staged a dramatisation o f Chekhov' s stor y 'War d No . 6 ' at the Central Soviet Army Theatre. The message was absolutely unambiguous: only the day before, the world itself had been a grim prison. Then new young directors came to Chekhov's theatre. Their productions, as those of others before them, also sometimes reflected political tendencies, but the conflict wa s much broader. These 'perestroika' peopl e felt the need to mak e thei r ow n connectio n wit h Chekhov . Thu s Leoni d Trushkin , fo r instance, bega n his theatrical caree r i n Moscow with a n eccentric produc tion o f The Cherry Orchard i n 1990 . An d th e Pokrovk a Theatr e i n Moscow opened in 199 2 with Sergei Artsybashev's chamber production of Three Sisters: actors an d audienc e unifie d int o a distinctiv e Chekhovia n 'family'. A year later, Alexander Kalyagin' s Et Cetera Theatr e opene d wit h Uncle Vanya. A serie s o f Chekho v festival s swep t acros s Russia . Thes e were democrati c or , i n othe r words , initiate d fro m 'below' , no t impose d from above . So, for instance, in the spring of 1992, a group of young actors and directors organise d the 'Bac k to Chekhov' Festival in St Petersburg. In the autumn of 1992 , Yekaterinburg was the venue for a children and youth theatre festival , calle d 'Betwee n Shakespear e an d Chekhov' . Late r i n th e same yea r somethin g quit e unprecedente d happene d i n Moscow : th e repertoire o f th e Firs t Internationa l Chekho v Theatr e Festiva l opene d i n Moscow - an d did not feature a single Russian production o f Chekhov. So theatre practitioner s go t togethe r t o hol d a n alternative festival, calle d 'Playing Chekhov'. This continued to expand and develop, recapturing the original scale and complexity o f the previous quarte r o f a century. Various kind s o f production, fro m differen t part s o f th e country , wer e involve d i n thi s proces s of expansion and reinterpretation, and these so-called 'plays of our time' were gradually performe d a t variou s theatres . Uncle Vanya wa s on e o f thes e plays, with si x premieres i n 199 3 i n Moscow alone , and i t was a s if these productions wer e intended t o heal o r answe r som e shared socia l 'wound' : namely, th e positio n o f a man wh o foun d th e truth onl y whe n i t wa s to o late, turned his back on his old life but failed to find the way towards a new one. In this period of Russia's radical reassessment o f values, this was truly a sor e subjec t an d i t receive d a particularly powerfu l expressio n i n Mar k Rozovsky's production at the Nikitsky Gates Theatre. The sam e them e wa s presente d i n a n unusua l an d origina l devised production b y Genriett a (Henrietta ) Yanovskaya , a t th e Mosco w Yout h Theatre, unde r th e rename d titl e o f Ivanov and Others. Yanovskay a brought in motifs, characters and characteristic lines from Chekhov' s other 173 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

TATIANA SHAKH-AZIZOV A

plays. While th e resul t wa s th e creatio n o f a complex an d bizarr e world , nonetheless Chekhov' s them e o f a ma n wh o ha s los t th e meanin g o f lif e remained both intact and prevalent. Three Sisters, written i n th e firs t yea r o f th e twentiet h century , ha s remained wit h u s throughou t th e century , an d i s no w stage d mor e frequently tha n before . Th e pla y meditate s o n wha t ha s happene d t o people, t o Russi a an d t o th e worl d a s a whol e ove r virtuall y th e las t hundred year s - an d i t wa s with thi s pla y tha t Ole g Yefremo v complete d his Chekhov cycle at the MAT in 1997. The Seagull continued its flight over Russia i n impatien t an d disturbin g anticipatio n o f it s centennia l anniver sary. It has become common for man y directors to regard The Seagull as a comedy, but a very special one in which the key 'comedian' is fate - an d the audience is allowed to laugh at the characters, but only until the last act. In this final act everything is changed, th e games, jovial o r cruel, come to a n end and for the denouement the comedy is transformed int o drama. Mark Zakharov' s 199 4 Lenko m productio n o f The Seagull featured a wide variety o f performance styles , ranging from vaudevill e t o tragedy. In theatres acros s Russia , whethe r Vologd a i n th e nort h o r Magnitogors k i n the Urals, productions of The Seagull are also done in many different styles , ranging fro m dar k grotesqu e comed y t o ligh t an d lyrica l declaration s o f love for theatre , its world an d its people. The 199 6 Maly Theatre produc tion o f The Seagull evolved from fu n t o deep melancholy. And The Seagull has also returned t o St Petersburg, where the centennial anniversar y o f the play's premiere was marked b y a festival an d conference calle d 'Th e Flight of th e Seagull' . Thi s flight stil l continue s an d ther e i s n o tellin g wha t distinctive features of our time may be reflected in it. The twentiet h centur y i s a t a n end , an d w e ca n no w su m u p th e development o f Chekhov' s theatre . Th e repertoir e o f th e Secon d Interna tional Chekho v Theatr e Festiva l (1996 ) include d al l Chekhov's full-lengt h plays produce d i n Russi a an d elsewhere . A t th e Thir d Festiva l (1998) , Chekhov's dram a wa s see n i n the wides t possibl e context , a s if th e worl d theatre, o n th e ev e o f th e thir d millennium , wa s reviewin g th e principa l stages o f it s ow n development : classica l (antique ) dram a - Shakespear e and Chekhov. NOTES 1 Al l quotations from Chekhov's works indicated in brackets are taken from N. F.

Belchikov an d others , eds. , Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem v 30 tomakh, Moscow, 1974-8 3 (Anton Chekhov, Collected Works and Letters in 30 Volumes, Moscow, 1974-83). Quotations are from the Letters. 2 Ver a Komissarzhevskay a (1864-1910 ) - on e o f th e mos t renowne d actresse s 174 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov on the Russian stage of th e lat e nineteent h century , playin g bot h i n th e province s an d a t th e Alexandrinsky Theatre . Sh e als o opene d he r ow n experimenta l theatr e i n St Petersburg. See chapter 15 in this volume and Selected Glossary. 3 Se e chapter 3 in this volume. 4 'O n the Soviet Stage', Teatr 1, i960, pp. 163-4 . 5 Yevgen y Vakhtangov, Materials and Articles, Moscow, 1951, p. 182. 6 Vsevolo d Meyerhold, Articles, Letters, Speeches, Talks, in two volumes. Vol. 11 , 1917-39, Moscow, 1968, p. 310. 7 Alexande r Tairov (1885-1950), director, and his wife, the actress Alisa Koonen (1889-1974) jointl y founde d th e Mosco w Kamern y (Chamber ) Theatre . Se e Nick Worrall , Modernism to Realism on the Soviet Stage, Cambridge, 1989 . For a detailed descriptio n o f Tairov's production o f The Seagull in 1944-5 , s e e Vera Gottlieb, Chekhov in Ferformance in Russia and Soviet Russia, Theatre in Focus Series, Cambridge, 1984. 8 Bori s Babochkin, In Theatre and Film, Moscow, 1968, p. 200. 9 Georg i Tovstonogov , The Range of Thoughts, Leningrad , 1972 , p . 220. Fo r more o n Tovstonogo v se e chapte r 9 i n thi s volume , not e 7 an d chapte r 15 , Selected Glossary. 10 Fo r more on Efros see chapter 1 1 in this volume, note 6 and chapter 15. 11 Anatol y Efros, Rehearsal, My Love, Moscow, 1975, p. 64. 12 Fo r more on the description 'The Thaw' see chapter 3 in this volume, note 10. 13 Se e chapter 8 in this volume. 14 Vasil y Grossman, Life and Fate, Moscow, 1988, pp. 264-5. 15 Kalmykia , forme r Centra l Asia n Republi c o f th e Sovie t Union , neighbourin g Kazakhstan, the capital of which is Elista. 16 Innokent y Smoktunovsk y i s best known outsid e Russi a fo r hi s performance o f Hamlet i n Kozintsev' s award-winnin g fil m o f 1964-5 . Se e chapte r 3 i n thi s volume, note 11. 17 Se e chapter 3 in this volume, note 12. 18 Vladimi r Vysotsk y (1938-80 ) wa s a charismati c an d famou s Russia n actor , poet and singer. 19 Yur i Lyubimov , se e chapter 9 in this volume, note 8 and chapte r 15 , Selected Glossary.

175 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

LAURENCE SENELIC K

Directors' Chekho v

A Selected Glossary giving details of directors/actors mentioned can be found at the end of this chapter. Shortly before hi s death, when asked to name the actors he considered th e best interpreter s o f hi s plays , Chekho v cite d thre e member s o f th e S t Petersburg Imperia l Theatr e wh o had appeare d i n the first productions o f Ivanov an d The Seagull. 1 Hi s slightin g omissio n o f actor s o f th e Mosco w Art Theatr e reflecte d th e nineteenth-centur y attitud e tha t a playe r wa s supposed t o enhanc e a playwright's word s throug h virtuosit y an d instinc tive affinity . Howeve r gifte d th e Ar t Theatr e actor s ma y hav e been , Chekhov regrette d tha t thei r individua l talent s wer e subjec t t o th e over riding concept of a director. The iron y i s tha t Chekhov' s ow n play s ha d themselve s evolve d fro m vehicles for histrioni c displa y into ensemble pieces , best implemented b y a masterful director . Hi s playwritin g caree r culminate d a t a time whe n th e director was emerging as prime mover in the modernist theatre. In common with th e Wagnerian notio n o f Gesamtkunstwerk, th e stagecraf t promote d by Appia, Craig , Stanislavsk y an d Reinhard t require d ever y component i n the mise-en-scene to b e integrate d an d controlle d b y a singl e vision . Chekhov's dram a benefite d fro m thi s development : actor s migh t giv e outstanding performance s o f specifi c roles , bu t hi s plays rarel y caugh t o n with audience s unles s package d b y a directo r int o a comprehensibl e an d congruent format . A comparison of , say , th e romanti c Hamlet s o f Kean , Devrient an d Mochalo v make s sense ; but t o compar e th e Ranevskaya s of Valentina Cortese , Alia Demidova an d Jutta Lamp e t o an y advantag e on e must se t the m i n th e context s create d b y Giorgi o Strehler , Anatol y Efro s and Peter Stein. 2 The identificatio n o f Chekhov' s play s wit h th e origina l Ar t Theatr e mises-en-scene wa s unavoidable . I n pre-Revolutionar y Russia , provincia l entrepreneurs, innovator s a t th e Stat e Alexandr a Theatre , an d youn g 176 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Directors' Chekhov directors suc h a s Meyerhold , Rostovste v an d Gaideburo v al l sedulousl y copied Stanislavsk y when staging Chekhov: this entailed close attention t o surface realis m wit h a n emphasi s o n atmospheric s an d soun d effects . Between 190 5 an d 1937 , the MA T displayed it s masterpiece s throughou t Europe an d th e Unite d States , whil e th e Pragu e Grou p o f Ar t Theatr e defectors propagate d thei r own versions of these productions. The residual impression left b y these effective an d well-acted staging s was that Chekhov was idiosyncraticall y Russia n an d bes t lef t t o Russians ; i f non-Russian s were to stage him, imitating the Art Theatre as slavishly as possible would produce th e bes t results . Director s wh o ha d falle n unde r th e Ar t Theatr e spell, such as Eino Kalima i n Finland an d Eva Le Gallienne in the US, did their best to transmit its allure by reproducing its externals. Chekhov wa s als o transporte d i n th e baggag e o f post-Revolutionar y emigres, who validate d thei r artisti c passport s b y claimin g t o b e kindre d spirits. In this diaspora, Russian theatre practitioners advertised a link with the Ar t Theatr e tha t wa s ofte n factitiou s o r tenuous , bu t plausible . Some directors, amon g the m Pete r Sharoff , Richar d Boleslavsk i an d Le o Bul gakov, were authentic products of the MAT studios, who had been exposed to Stanislavsk y a t differen t phase s o f hi s unceasin g experimentation . Whatever th e case , emigre and ersatz-Art Theatre Chekho v tende d t o b e retrospective and elegiac in tone, hearkening back to a paradise lost. Even thos e refugee s wh o rejecte d th e Ar t Theatr e approac h o r neve r practised it carried on under its banner. In England of the 1920 s and 1930 s Theodor Komisarjevsky wa s regarded as the leading Chekhovian, althoug h he had twice failed to be admitted to the MAT and Stanislavsky loathed the book Komisarjevsk y ha d writte n abou t hi s system . 'Komis' , a s h e wa s familiarly known , brough t a whiff o f modernist stagecraf t t o the commercial English theatr e h e despised . Hi s Chekho v wa s shrewdl y calculate d t o appeal t o th e tast e o f th e averag e matinee-goer : b y cuttin g eccentricitie s and lon g speeches , historicisin g th e actio n an d emphasisin g th e lov e interest, an d castin g attractiv e youn g star s o n th e ascendant , h e len t Chekhov th e appea l o f romanti c melodrama . Th e stag e wa s drenche d i n moonlight and music laid on to underscore an ambience of wistful lyricism . Komis' conversio n o f Chekho v int o prestigiou s consume r good s elegantl y displayed would be perpetuated in post-war Italy in the lush and decorative productions of Luchino Visconti. Georgian-born George s Pitoef f introduce d a n equall y idiosyncrati c Chekhov t o th e French , althoug h hi s asceticis m rarel y attracte d matine e audiences. Influenced a s much by economic constraints a s by the 'Itineran t Theatre' o f hi s mentor Pave l Gaideburov , Pitoef f repudiate d th e cluttere d naturalism o f the MAT and situated his Chekhov amid black draperies and 177 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

LAURENCE SENELIC K

two-dimensional tree-trunks . Strippin g dow n a play t o a conflict betwee n the sensitiv e artis t an d society , h e imbued hi s mises-en-scene wit h melan choly an d tragi c foreboding . Althoug h h e rewrot e an d abridge d t o sui t French conventions, Parisians preferre d t o regard thes e delicatel y wrough t etudes as exotic effusions o f a 'Slavic soul'. The year s betwee n th e Worl d War s migh t b e calle d th e sentimenta l period o f Chekhovian production . For Western spectators , Chekhov was a man o f sorrow s an d acquainte d wit h grief; whenever a director attempte d to brin g ou t th e comi c strain , critic s an d audienc e becam e confused . Would-be clone s o f th e MAT stagings cultivate d protracte d pauses , turgid rhythms an d tears , an d wer e titivate d wit h star s i n th e leadin g roles . Informed b y the well-entrenched notio n that Chekho v was a psychological naturalist of the so-called Ibsen school, the mises-en-scene were confined t o box-sets an d th e reproductio n o f 'everyday ' details , includin g th e obliga tory samovar. So long a s these views prevailed, Chekhov' s work s hel d little appea l fo r the foremos t director s o f th e time . I n Bolshevi k Russia , wher e Chekho v was dismisse d a s a n outmode d chronicle r o f a feckles s intelligentsia , Vakhtangov's tragic-grotesqu e stagin g o f The Wedding (1921 ) faile d t o influence treatmen t o f the major plays . Meyerhold too k o n Chekho v onl y near th e end o f his long career, wit h a mechanically slapstic k renditio n of three vaudevilles. 3 In Germany Max Reinhardt, possibly cowed by the aura of definitivenes s abou t th e Ar t Theatr e productions , neve r go t aroun d t o Chekhov, and directors who did appreciate him, such as Jiirgen Fehling and Heinz Hilpert, faile d t o infect audience s wit h their enthusiasm . Stanislavs ky's leading admirer i n the US, the Group Theatre under Harold Clurman , abandoned a projecte d Three Sisters for it s lac k o f socia l relevanc e an d box-office drawin g power. To ri d itsel f o f th e cliche s o f gloo m an d doom , Chekhovia n stagin g needed a divorc e bot h fro m th e historica l circumstance s reflecte d i n th e plays and from th e obsolescent techniques of the Art Theatre. NemirovichDanchenko realise d thi s whe n h e mounte d a n optimisti c Three Sisters in 1940. I n Russi a a generation later , th e popula r them e o f a n idealis t i n a world o f cynica l compromise , foun d i n th e play s o f Arbuzov , Rozo v an d Volodin,4 was read into Chekhov's drama. Ivanov in particular was revived on a regular basis. Anti-domesticity was proclaimed b y scenery that lacked walls an d doors ; ruine d manor-house s wer e mad e t o loo k lik e skeleta l prisons, overgrow n b y a Sleeping Beauty's garden o f liana s an d brambles . This became a cliche of its own. (See Appendix 4.) Unfortunately, afte r th e Second World War Chekhov suffere d i n Central and Easter n Europ e fro m bein g impose d a s par t o f th e Sovie t cultura l 178 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Directors' Chekhov hegemony: he and Stanislavsky, now heavily alloyed with Socialist Realism, were thrust down the throats of the Czech, Polish, East German, Romanian and Hungaria n theatres . Littl e wonde r if , lef t t o thei r ow n devices , the y sought t o discredi t an d supersed e th e MA T legacy . A t th e sam e time , Samuel Beckett an d the Theatre o f the Absurd offere d model s for bringin g out th e symbolis t an d alogica l element s i n Chekhov , an d a spat e o f 'metaphoric' stagings and ruthlessly anti-sentimental, even caricatural interpretations mushroome d al l over Europe. This Chekhov reviva l was chiefl y due t o Otoma r Krejc a an d Giorgi o Strehler , bot h leftist s bu t o f quit e different stripe . At the Divadlo z a Branou (Theatr e Behin d the Gates ) i n Prague, Krejc a worked closel y with hi s actors t o explor e wha t Gork y ha d calle d th e cold and crue l Chekhov , a n impassiv e creato r wh o flung his character s int o a meaningless world . Withou t bein g a doctrinair e existentialist , Krejc a channelled hi s ow n experienc e a s a victi m o f Sovie t dominatio n int o a version o f Chekho v tha t administere d th e shoc k o f recognitio n t o hi s audiences. Mountin g five Chekho v play s seventee n time s throughou t Europe i n an increasingly unconventional manner , h e became respected a s the director most closely acquainted with the subtleties of the text. Strehler's earlies t Chekho v production s a t th e Piccol o Teatr o d i Milan o had bee n political an d satirica l in bent; his finest achievement, The Cherry Orchard (1974), abstracted th e nostalgia o f Komisarjevsky an d Pitoef f b y enlarging i t beyon d th e privat e sphere . Strehleria n epigone s becam e mos t common i n Wester n Europ e an d th e English-speakin g world , wherea s i n Central an d Easter n Europe , Krejca' s mode l o f th e crue l grotesqu e domi nated, particularly in the work of Peter Zadek, Roberto Ciulli and Matthias Langhoff. The Romanian director , Andrei Serban, staging Chekhov in New York, Massachusetts and Japan as well as in his homeland, often seeme d to shuttle uncomfortably betwee n these two polarities. (See p. 143.) Until recently, the English-speaking world has been largely impervious to innovations an d radica l reform s i n Chekhovia n staging . Psychologica l realism remain s th e preferre d model , an d th e Chekhovia n estat e ha s bee n familiarised a s th e ol d homestea d o r th e decaye d manor-house . Firml y situated at the fin de siecle, he is a safe choice for repertory seasons, offerin g plum role s fo r actor s an d comfortin g th e spectator s wit h th e dramati c equivalent o f valeria n drops . Thi s ma y accoun t fo r th e larg e numbe r o f American play s abou t Chekhov' s ow n life , i n which he turns into , in Neil Simon's words , 'Th e Goo d Doctor' ; o r wh y Britis h dramatists , suc h a s Trevor Griffith s an d Howard Barker , feel th e need to rewrite his plays in a brutal an d unambivalen t style , i n rebellio n agains t gentee l tradition s o f playing Chekhov's own words. 179 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

LAURENCE SENELIC K

Under the pressure of postmodernist intellectual trends, Chekhov's status as a readily recognisable cultural totem makes him vulnerable to all sorts of co-optation. Directors bored with common-or-garden-variety Chekho v feel free t o shuffle th e dramatic structure to provide a metatextual gloss. Krejca experimented b y playing Act Four o f The Seagull with interpolation s fro m earlier act s t o compris e a montag e o f commentar y (Divadl o z a Branou , Theatre Behind the Gates, 1972) . In Moscow, Yury Pogrebnichko reduce d the same work to an anthology of Chekhovian allusion s (Teat r na Krasnoy Presne, Theatr e o f th e Re d Army , 1989 , 1992) . A n eve n mor e playfu l intertextualism was practised in Genrietta (Henrietta ) Yanovskaya's Ivanov and the Others (Moscow Youth Theatre, 1993) , filled with homunculi an d in-jokes fro m th e whol e Chekho v canon . A s the millenniu m approaches , Russian spectators , facing a n uncertain future , appreciat e thes e winks an d nudges at a shared cultural experience. Elsewhere, the dichotomy still exists between production s whic h seek only to 'tel l the story' to their publi c and an 'avant-garde ' whic h trie s t o appropriat e Chekho v an d assumption s about him as media for its own messages. The Seagul l

With it s awkwar d vestige s o f nineteenth-centur y stagecraf t an d it s inter weaving o f artisti c debate s wit h lov e affairs , The Seagull needs carefu l balance and an almost musical rendition to avoid coming off a s melodrama or soa p opera . Confessin g tha t h e ha d n o ide a o f wha t th e pla y meant , Stanislavsky use d i t a s a n exercis e i n nastroenie (atmosphere, mood) ; h e recreated th e factur e an d textur e o f everyda y lif e throug h lighting , soun d and behavioura l traits . However , sinc e th e Ar t Theatr e neve r toure d th e play an d soo n droppe d i t fro m it s repertory, i t ha d les s impact tha n late r MAT stagings. The standar d approac h take n t o The Seagull focusses o n th e conflic t between a younge r generatio n o f idealist s an d a n olde r generatio n o f hacks. Ho w director s dea l wit h Treplev' s Symbolis t pla y i n Ac t On e usually indicate s ho w seriousl y th e audienc e i s t o tak e hi s pretension s t o literary talen t or , indeed , whethe r ar t o r lov e i s t o b e pre-eminent . Th e consensus share s Stanislavsky' s opinio n tha t Treple v wa s a mute , inglor ious Pushkin kept dow n b y the vile seducer Trigori n an d Nina a n inspired talent forge d b y suffering . Komisarjevsky' s moon-struc k Londo n produc tion (Ne w Theatre , 1936 ) playe d u p th e them e o f youn g lov e thwarted . Pitoeff's tw o Parisia n production s (Theatr e de s Champs-Elysees , 1922 ; Theatre de s Mathurins , 1939 ) wer e threnodies , wit h Treple v a typ e o f martyred artis t an d Nin a a n etherea l muse ; the late r stagin g finally made 180 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Directors' Chekhov Chekhov popula r i n Paris , suitin g th e moo d o f anxiou s yearnin g o n th e eve of war. The Seagull coul d b e slanted t o protes t state-impose d uniformit y i n the arts. Aleksandr Tairo v reopened hi s Kamerny Theatre in Moscow in 194 4 with a Seagull distilled into a Platonic dialogue on art's eternal verities. Set against blac k drape s an d a white piano , its lines pruned t o keep th e focu s on aesthetic debate and Nina played by the middle-aged Alisa Koonen, the production was appreciated by the cognoscenti. Given Tairov's low prestige within th e Sovie t theatrica l hierarchy , i t wa s mainl y ignored , however . I n his firs t Seagull (Narodni Divadlo , Prague , i960) , Krejc a trie d t o mak e Nina's gospe l o f vocation th e play's message, a didacticism h e forswore i n his late r work . Her e too , realis m wa s subjugate d t o th e play' s symbolis t elements: Josef Svobod a replace d a constructed environmen t wit h pools of light and leaf-patterns. In th e post-Thaw 5 era , th e fashionabl e Sovie t literar y contras t o f adolescent ideal s wit h middle-age d compromis e maintaine d th e earlie r valency, favourin g Treplev' s transcendenta l effort s ove r Trigorin' s work manlike professionalism. When Anatoly Efros directe d The Seagull in 1966 (Lenin-Komsomol Theatre , Moscow) , th e childis h rebe l Treple v stoo d adrift ami d a hos t o f nasty , striden t elders , wit h eve n Nin a playe d a s a single-minded careerist . Bori s Livanov' s restagin g fo r th e Ar t Theatr e (1968) pointed up the parallels with Hamlet, apotheosising the melancholy Treplev;6 wherea s Ole g Efremov's Seagull (Moscow, 1970) , intended a s a polemic agains t Livano v an d reflectin g th e squabblin g i n hi s ow n Sovre mennik Theatre , isolate d eac h characte r i n hi s self-involvement . Afte r Efremov cam e to head the Art Theatre, he metamorphosed fro m Treple v to Trigorin: hi s Seagull there i n 198 0 wa s les s judgemental , suggestin g that , even in extremis, one could go on living. Leaders o f th e America n 'avant-garde' , suc h a s Andr e Gregor y an d Joseph Chaikin , sa w in the play th e origin s o f thei r ow n creative striving , and ther e wer e five majo r restaging s i n Ne w Yor k i n 197 5 alone ; Gregory's wa s th e mos t daring , paraphrasin g th e line s an d effacin g th e border betwee n pas t an d present . Th e play' s subtitl e ' A Comedy ' wa s exploited b y Lindsa y Anderson , Jonatha n Mille r an d Elli s Rabb , wh o relished th e farc e o f Arkadina' s histrioni c behaviou r bu t coul d no t encompass th e whol e wor k withi n a comi c vision . A s usual , i t wa s European director s wh o reformulate d th e pla y mos t drastically . Pete r Zadek (Bochum , 1973 ) an d Antoin e Vite z (Paris , 1984 ) place d Treplev' s platform o n the apron , s o that th e audienc e o n stag e mirrored tha t i n the house; th e interlockin g lov e affair s an d thei r attendan t frustration s wer e given bloate d prominence . Livi u Ciulei , a Romanian directo r workin g i n 181 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

LAURENCE SENELIC K

the US , initiate d a much-imitate d practic e o f beginnin g th e pla y wit h Treplev's suicide , an d the n flashing bac k t o Ac t One . Robert o Ciull i (Miilheim, 1984 ) reduce d th e pla y t o a serie s o f startling , evocativ e images: a blind Sori n feeling his way through velvet curtains, Nina dresse d as Pierro t tie d t o a stake , th e lott o gam e playe d agains t a mountai n o f suitcases around a n empty bedstead . The 'spell-binding' lake has also been made a central image, particularly in Japan . Andre i Serba n (Shik i Theatr e Compan y o f Tokyo , 1980 ) an d Hirowatari Tsanetosh i (Toky o Engeki, 1993 ) bot h situate d Treplev' s plat form a t th e centr e o f a pool. There , i n Serban' s staging , h e 'drowne d hi s book' an d committe d hara-kiri, fallin g fac e forwar d i n th e water . I n Tsanetoshi's version , Nin a attempte d suicid e i n a moat o f pelluci d wate r that purled and babbled throughout th e play as a symbol of eternity. More like Vincent Crummies' (the itinerant theatre manager in Dickens' Nicholas Nickleby) 'practicabl e pump ' wa s th e liqui d elemen t o f Serge y Solyvov' s expensive Seagull (Taganka, 1994) , an 'against interpretation' counterblas t to th e deconstruction s o f Pogrebnichko . I n th e on-stag e lake , nake d workmen swam, a half-naked Trigori n fished, and Treplev shot himself in a boat. Thi s retur n t o naturalis m dre w les s fro m Stanislavsk y tha n fro m Hollywood. Uncle Vany a

With it s smal l cast , boun d b y wha t Osi p Mandelshta m calle d 'propin quity,'7 and its sharply focussed conflicts , Uncle Vanya has commonly been presented a s a domestic traged y o r a passage d'armes between tw o stron g actors. Ho w th e pla y work s ha s ha d mor e t o d o wit h th e castin g o f Voinitsky an d Astro v tha n wit h an y overarchin g directoria l concept . Stanislavsky romanticised th e country doctor, and his contemporaries too k the play t o b e a mirror o f th e pligh t o f th e provincial intelligentsia . Afte r the Revolution, despit e officia l condemnatio n o f the subject matter , a new proletarian audienc e continue d t o wee p ove r th e suffering s o f Vany a an d Sonya. The elements of despair made it a difficult wor k to incorporate into Socialist Realism. The play' s meanin g becam e deracinate d whe n i t lef t Russia n soil : early productions i n Germany, England, Ireland an d France were condemned a s collocations o f cranks . Th e first Vanya t o wi n succes s wit h a popula r audience wa s stage d i n 193 0 b y the Broadwa y produce r Je d Harris , wh o shrewdly realised that, if properly rewritten and stellarly cast, Chekhov had box-office appeal . Th e scrip t provide d b y Ros e Caylo r eliminate d ambi guities and introduced sentimentalities; the company headed by Lillian Gish 182 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Directors' Chekhov made Russian s see m familiar . I t inaugurate d America n all-sta r Chekhov , which was to culminate in the artistic debacl e of Mike Nichols' Broadway Vanya of 197 3 (Circle-in-the-Square , NY) . Pairing Nico l Williamso n an d George C. Scott, it proved definitively that a mere assemblage of celebrities, without stron g directoria l exegesis , coul d provid e onl y a n incoheren t an d cliche-ridden Chekhov. Williamson's reviva l th e nex t yea r a t th e Othe r Place , Stratford-upon Avon, di d demonstrat e tha t a n intimat e spatia l relatio n betwee n actor s and audienc e aide d th e play , allowin g a microscopi c examinatio n o f motives an d reactions . Still , Vanya's success i n Englan d i s invariably tie d to it s leadin g actors , a patter n se t b y Laurenc e Olivie r an d Ralp h Richardson a t th e Ne w Theatr e i n 1945 , an d confirme d b y Olivie r an d Michael Redgrav e a t th e Chicheste r Festiva l productio n o f 1962 . Despite occasional interpretations tha t advanc e the themes of environmentalism o r Christian fortitude , Vanya has remaine d a n actors ' showcase , whic h ha s enjoyed a remarkable leas e o f life ove r th e pas t decad e in films relocatin g the characters' isolation to the New Zealand outbac k o r the Welsh downs. Andre Gregory' s productio n o f a n America n versio n b y Davi d Mame t (Victory Theatre, New York, 1991 ) received a wide audienc e whe n filme d by Loui s Mall e a s Vanya on 42nd Street. Presente d a s a rehearsa l i n progress, unenhance d b y perio d costume s o r elaborat e settings , th e characters' raw emotions cam e across clearly. Mamet's Englis h versions in which ambiguitie s tur n int o strongl y worde d assertion s brough t Chekho v closer t o contemporar y American s who , lik e th e directo r Niko s Psachar opoulos a t th e Williamstow n (Mass. ) Theatre , prefe r thei r Chekho v red blooded and tempestuous. Others broke the naturalistic mould more aggressively. The Uncle Vanya Show of New York's Irondale Ensemble Project in collaboration with the St Petersburg Salo n Theatr e (1985-90 ) dismantle d th e pla y int o a demented collage of vaudeville bit s concerning a Michigan radi o hos t who thinks he is Chekhov's hero . This work-in-progress wa s a deliberate graftin g o f pop on to what was perceived a s high culture. More overtl y political in its use of farc e wa s th e Vanya o f Eimunta s Nekrosiu s (Stat e Yout h Theatr e o f Lithuania, Vilnius , 1986) . Mean t a s a n attac k o n Russia n cultura l hege mony, it reduced the characters to a set of antic monomaniacs; their actions were undercu t b y a choru s o f floor-polishers whos e earth y horsepla y sardonically commente d o n th e absur d aspiration s o f thei r betters . Th e Polish directo r Jerz y Grzegorzewsk i (Warsa w Studi o Theatre , 1993 ) use d repetition, crampe d spatia l dimension s an d a n arres t o f time' s passag e t o objectify th e characters ' predicaments : eterna l recurrenc e wa s th e point , and nothing ever came to a definite conclusion. 183 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

LAURENCE SENELIC K

Three Sister s

Chekhov's first play written specifically fo r the Moscow Art Theatre, Three Sisters, is more ambitiou s tha n it s immediat e predecessors . The larg e an d varied cast and the temporal spa n of seasons and years give it the sweep of a novel . A play mor e suitabl e fo r a permanent repertor y compan y tha n a fit-up troupe , it can satisfy a director's ambition to create a microcosm and orchestrate a fugue o f moods and genre-pieces . It was the most impressiv e of th e MAT' s Chekhovia n staging s an d th e on e mos t closel y copie d b y Russian regiona l an d foreig n directors . Indeed , th e directo r o f th e firs t Three Sisters a t th e Pragu e Nationa l Theatr e wrot e t o Stanislavsk y requesting detailed information o n the music and uniforms he had used. 8 Pre-revolutionary Russia n audience s referre d t o attendin g th e Ar t Theatre productio n a s 'callin g o n th e Prozorovs' , an d accompanie d th e performances wit h floods of tear s an d crie s o f 'Oh! ' a t th e sisters ' disma l fate. Thi s attitud e wa s i n essenc e transferre d t o al l it s successors : th e donnee was that the sisters were admirable heroines, downed by provincial philistinism an d th e ambition s o f tha t petty-bourgeoi s bitc h Natasha . Stanislavsky's an d Kachalov's ennobling o f Vershinin an d Tusenbach made sure tha t n o iron y wa s hear d i n th e orator y abou t har d wor k an d th e future. Predictably , Komisarjevsk y overdi d th e glamour , settin g the actio n in th e 1870s , turnin g Tusenbac h int o a handsom e juvenil e lea d an d th e whole pla y int o a Pre-Raphaelit e tal e o f blighte d love s (Barne s Theatre , London, 1926 ; revived 1929) . Pitoeff, afte r excisin g al l the long speeches, made the play a plaint for an irrecoverable past, indulging his own sense of loss (Theatre des Arts, Paris, 1929) . A French director working in London, Michel Saint-Deni s too k a more objectiv e vie w o f th e dram a and , rehear sing a strong ensemble for a n unprecedented eigh t weeks, was delivered of a well-balance d Three Sisters as stron g o n comed y a s i t wa s o n patho s (Queen's Theatre, London, 1938). Nemirovich-Danchenko, eage r t o reclai m Chekho v a s a Sovie t author , refurbished Three Sisters (1940) t o mak e a positiv e statement : costume s were spanking clean, vocal delivery clarion clear, the settings suffused wit h light. Lik e thos e wh o regre t th e cleanin g o f th e Sistin e Chape l ceiling , Westerners deplored the over-painting of a subtle grisaille with the primary colours o f propaganda . Withi n Russi a itself , however , thi s Three Sisters recalled a pre-Stalinist world of decency and honour; it gave licence to seek inspiration i n Chekhov, rather tha n dismissin g him a s an outdated chroni cler o f defeatism . Th e onl y tru e successo r t o Nemirovic h i n the post-wa r USSR, Georg y Tovstonogo v o f Leningrad' s Bolsho y Dramati c Theatre , stripped down Art Theatre illusionism even further, enlargin g the play into 184 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Directors' Chekhov an epic which stranded the characters in space, while still endorsing faith in human potential (1965). News o f th e renovatio n o f Stanislavsk y wa s slo w i n seepin g int o th e American consciousness . Th e long-awaite d Actor s Studi o Three Sisters directed b y Lee Strasberg (NY , 1963) was supposed t o vindicate his bran d of 'Metho d acting' , itself roote d i n Russian emigre teachings o f the 1920s . The narcissis m an d ra w emotio n i t generate d reduce d th e pla y t o a set of acting exercises , a n unfocusse d displa y o f individual s indulgin g i n inco herent mannerisms. The production reveale d not onl y the bankruptcy o f a misunderstood Ar t Theatr e model , bu t als o th e nee d fo r long-establishe d ensembles, rathe r tha n hastil y thrown-togethe r cast s o f disparat e back ground, to do Chekhov justice. The first 'cruel ' approach to Three Sisters came from Otoma r Krejca. His production a t the Divadlo za Branou (1965 ) was superficially recognisabl e - fin-de-siecle costumes, military uniforms, whisker s galore; but Svoboda' s scenography reduce d th e settin g t o a fe w dominan t symboli c elements . Instead o f bein g understated, th e actin g was hysterical an d violent . At the final curtain , discardin g th e typical statuesqu e tableau , th e sister s whirle d around th e stag e lik e blinde d birds , a s D r Chebutyki n (playe d b y Krejc a himself) soare d ove r the first row s of the audience o n a swing, crowing 'I t doesn't matter! It doesn't matter!' Post-Krejca Europea n production s adopte d hi s critica l attitud e t o th e sisters, re-examining thei r claim s t o mora l o r intellectua l superiorit y ove r their surroundings. Masha's adultery, Olga's squeamish gentility and Irina's indifference t o he r suitor s wer e see n t o pu t the m mor e o n a pa r wit h Natasha. Lucian Pintilie's Paris production of 197 8 turned them into facet s of a single archetypa l woman , eroti c an d repressed . A younger generatio n of Russian s attacke d th e idee recue o f Three Sisters a s figurativ e o f everything stagnan t i n establishmen t culture . Efro s stage d a scandalou s Sisters (Moscow, 1967 ) tha t provoke d angr y letter s t o editor s an d wa s ultimately banned. His Prozorovs and their circle were deluded idealists, so cocksure o f thei r ow n virtue s tha t the y wer e obliviou s t o thei r gradua l absorption by evil. It was a strong message to Soviet intelligentsia that they had le t their birthrigh t b e stolen. Yury Lyubimov's Three Sisters (Mosco w Drama Theatre , Malaya Bronnaya) , 1981) , set in an inhospitable barrack s cum lecture-hall, offere d anothe r sardoni c comment o n Soviet life. As if in response to the recurrent cal l 'To Moscow! To Moscow,' h e opened a wall of th e Tagank a Theatre , lettin g i n col d nigh t ai r an d a vie w o f th e contemporary capital . 'Yo u year n fo r Moscow? ' h e seeme d t o b e saying . 'Well there it is, in all its noise and squalor. You aspire to a glorious future ? Is thi s wha t yo u ha d i n mind? ' Sixt y year s o f fals e aspiratio n wer e

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

LAURENCE SENELIC K

debunked i n on e moment . I n the Gorbache v era , Pogrebnichk o (Teat r n a Krasnoy Presne , Moscow , 1990 ) turne d Three Sisters int o a museu m exhibit se t behin d velve t rope s i n a mas s o f antiqu e detritus , promptin g post-Soviet spectator s t o com e t o grip s wit h a pas t tha t ha s lef t the m washed up on the shoals of the present. Regrettably, these innovations remained overlooke d o r ineffectual i n the English-speaking world , eve n thoug h Krejca' s Three Sisters visite d th e World Theatre Season in London in 1969. A number of British productions, especially thos e o f Jonatha n Mille r (Cambridg e Theatre , 1976) , Trevo r Nunn (RSC, Warehouse, 1979), 9 and Mike Alfreds' Share d Experience Co. (1986),10 tried to take a more jaundiced view of the characters' aspiration s and self-justifications . Th e problem is that Britis h an d American audience s want t o identif y wit h th e Prozorov s an d ar e loat h t o accep t production s which d o no t favou r them . Th e outrage d reactio n t o th e Three Sisters staged b y th e grea t Georgia n directo r Rober t Sturu a (Queen' s Theatre , London, 1990 ) demonstrate d this : hi s anti-sentimenta l an d exuberantl y physical approac h evoke d shudder s o f disgus t fro m th e critica l an d academic establishments . Ye t thi s ver y approach , carrie d t o a n extrem e more recently by Eimuntas Nekrosius, is a valuable corrective, the allegedly inadmissible inventiveness provoking fresh discoverie s in an overly familia r text. A wedding of Stanislavskian stagecraft t o an 'objective' attitude occurred in Pete r Stein' s productio n a t th e Berli n Schaubiihn e i n 1981 . In takin g psychological an d environmenta l naturalis m t o thei r logica l extremes , h e burst throug h realit y to reach anothe r dimension . When the cast suddenl y froze in Act One, hearkening to the hum of the spinning top, it was as if the music o f th e sphere s ha d penetrate d th e Prozoro v drawin g room . A t th e same time , Stein' s unflinchin g exposur e o f th e neurose s o f th e well-bre d sisters was meant to reflect on his own complacent bourgeois audience. Of all Chekhov's plays, Three Sisters has undergone the greatest number of cultural transferences, rese t in the Caribbean, Chinatown an d a Pennsylvania coal-minin g centre . Th e influenc e o f Becket t wa s eas y t o trac e i n Squat Theatre' s intentionall y borin g thirty-minut e versio n i n whic h thre e male actors stammere d ou t the sisters' lines (New York, 1980) ; in Tadashi Suzuki's reduction of the play to an hour's worth of antiphony among three men an d five women, som e o f the m pen t u p i n basket s (SCO T Company , 1984); and , mos t blatantly , i n Hartmu t Wickert' s Kommen und Gehen (Tubingen, 1988) , contrastin g th e 'dangerou s zones ' o f silenc e wit h th e cover-up o f incessan t chatter . Give n th e centralit y o f th e sorora l trio , th e play als o has a special appea l to lesbian an d feminis t groups , which stres s the growing interdependency o f the sisters, from distanc e an d alienation at 186 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Directors' Chekhov the start to solidarity b y the finale. One o f the most notorious deconstruc tions ha s bee n th e Wooste r Group' s Brace Up!, directe d b y Elizabet h LeCompte (Ne w York , 1990) . T o addres s an d criticis e th e postmoder n sensibility, sequential narrative was made impossible by omnipresent noise, video screens , rapi d alternatio n an d juxtapositio n o f image s an d tim e frames. The Cherr y Orchar d

Chekhov's last play is his most complex. For all its grounding in reality, it pierces, in Andrey Bely's words, 'a n apertur e t o eternity'. 11 Th e audience s of th e origina l Mosco w Ar t Theatr e productio n wer e mos t take n b y th e sedulous reproductio n o f a lif e the y knew , bu t eve n the n ther e wer e dissenters, amon g the m Bely , Meyerhold , an d th e Ukrainia n ar t criti c Nikolaev, who complained tha t the plethora o f surface detai l occlude d the play's symboli c aspects. It was also clear, as Chekhov himself pointe d out , that Stanislavsky' s castin g ha d unbalance d th e play : th e autho r ha d intended a comed y wit h Lopakhi n an d Charlott a Ivanovn a occupyin g central positions . Instead , Stanislavsk y a s Gae v an d Knippe r a s Ranevs kaya, bot h pron e t o idealisin g thei r roles , directe d th e audience' s sympa thies t o th e displace d gentry . Emigre nostalgia intensifie d thi s imbalanc e after the Revolution. Within Bolshevi k Russia , The Cherry Orchard wa s th e onl y majo r Chekhov pla y t o b e revive d wit h an y frequenc y becaus e Lopkahi n an d Treplev could be made heralds of a brave new world. The most memorable revision wa s tha t o f Andre y Lobano v (Simono v Studio , Moscow , 1934) : the Gae v famil y an d thei r dependant s wer e show n t o b e despicabl e parasites an d debauchees , an d Trofimov' s second-ac t harangue s wer e delivered in a bathhouse to a crowd of avid secondary-school students. Abroad, The Cherry Orchard invariably aped the Art Theatre, both in its look and in its values. Nemirovich-Danchenko attempte d to set this right in 1933, when he directed it for Tatiana Pavlowa's company in Milan to bring out more of Ranevskaya's stylis h egoism and Trofimov's ineptitude . Tyrone Guthrie's Old Vic production of 1933 also played up the comedy, due to his own penchant fo r irreverenc e an d a cast containing suc h talents a s Athene Seyler, Charle s Laughto n an d Els a Lanchester . Th e comed y tende d t o bewilder Wester n critics , use d t o a slow-pace d an d reveren t treatmen t o f Chekhov. No seriou s rethinking o f The Cherry Orchard took plac e until afte r th e war, whe n Giorgi o Strehle r approache d i t a s a timeless masterpiec e o n a par wit h The Tempest, Faust and The Magic Flute, sharing wit h the m a n 187 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

LAURENCE SENELIC K

ability t o spea k o n a grea t man y level s t o a grea t man y issue s (Piccol o Teatro d i Milano , 1974) . Wherea s Krejc a believe d tha t ever y directoria l decision inevitably le d down a path compromisin g th e author' s intentions , Strehler sough t t o conflat e al l th e level s o f meanin g i n th e play : th e narrative, the socio-historical an d the universal metaphoric. The toys in the nursery, for instance, went beyond veristic props to become emblems of the characters' los t innocenc e an d th e arreste d developmen t o f thei r world . Strehler's production , particularl y hi s white-on-whit e deco r wit h it s over head membran e o f petal s i n a diaphanou s veil , breathin g wit h th e actor s and audience , had a n indelible effec t o n most Cherry Orchards thereafter. All ove r th e worl d achromati c costumin g an d scenery , a diaphanous sky cloth o r groundcloth an d a toy train becam e indispensable accoutrements . Even Krejca' s Diisseldor f Orchard of 197 6 engulfe d th e character s i n a forest o f furnitur e unde r a luminou s whit e dustcover . Andre i Serban' s derivative stagin g i n Ne w Yor k i n 197 7 (Vivia n Beaumon t Theatre ) first made th e U S take notic e tha t a n alternativ e approac h t o th e Ar t Theatr e was valid; although most critics were ignorant of the European antecedent s of Serban' s mise-en-scene, they welcome d a brea k wit h th e traditiona l verismo. In fact, Serban' s directin g lacked Strehler' s intellectua l coherence : his dream-lik e imager y her e an d i n late r restaging s - a little gir l layin g a flower a t a factor y door , industria l worker s silhouette d agains t th e cyclorama - hinte d a t a politica l message , but , excep t fo r Trofimov' s messianic fervour bein g played straight, it remained inchoate. (See p. 143.) The avoidanc e o f a politica l aspec t t o Chekhov' s work s ha s bee n common everywher e bu t i n the Sovie t bloc , where externa l circumstance s filled even anodyn e production s wit h sous-entendus. A striking exceptio n to this neglec t wa s The Cherry Orchard rewritten b y Trevor Griffith s an d directed b y Richar d Eyr e (Nottingha m Playhouse , 1977) : a Marxis t coarsening o f th e tex t enable d Trofimo v an d Lopakhi n t o becom e th e raisonneurs fo r a playwright wh o distruste d raisonneurs. 11 Less solemnly, two Eas t Germa n Brechtian s workin g i n Wes t Germany , Manfre d Karg e and Matthia s Langhoff , combine d politic s wit h caricatur e t o produc e a George Grosz-lik e Orchard, a violen t farc e people d wit h selfis h vulgar ians, analogue s o f th e smu g burgher s o f th e Federa l Republi c (Bochum , 1981).

Peter Brook' s Orchard (Bouffes d u Nord, Paris , 1981 ) preferre d simpli city: with no more elaborate scenography than the ramshackle theatre itself and blu e Orienta l carpets , rolle d u p t o represen t trees , sprea d ou t a s grounding fo r story-telling . The swif t pac e allowed n o time for 'psycholo gical' moments, pregnant pause s o r maudlin bathos . The fortuitousness o f the characters' fates wa s suggested b y blocking that seeme d haphazard bu t 188 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Directors' Chekhov was i n fac t carefull y arranged . Whe n i t toure d t o Moscow , thi s Orchard was welcomed as an epiphany. It offered liberatio n from bot h Stanislavsky's literalism an d th e 'Aesopic ' metaphor s o f suc h a s Efros , whos e Tagank a Cherry Orchard of 197 5 ha d bee n se t i n a graveyar d fille d wit h famil y portraits. Admiring the productions of Strehler and Brook, in which human relations continue d t o coun t whe n al l els e wa s devalued , th e Russian s recognised tha t Wester n Europea n Chekho v ha d a differen t geneti c cod e from their own. This lesson was driven home at the first Chekho v Festiva l in Moscow in 1991 which saw three new Cherry Orchards.13 Peter Stein sought to make 'indifferent nature ' itsel f a character , a t odd s wit h huma n passions ; hi s staging was s o illusionistic that i t brought bac k the real hay o f Stanislavsky's secon d ac t an d s o symphoni c tha t i t le t event s unfol d i n rea l time . Serban recreated hi s New York staging with a Romanian cast , pushing the political symbolis m i n th e directio n o f anti-Communis t rhetoric . Krejc a seemed t o b e played out , hi s lates t Orchard devoid o f lyricism , colou r o r specificity. In the wake of these examples, recent Russian Orchards, such as that of Adolph Shapiro (St Petersburg BDT, 1992), are made object lessons for a society in disarray, whos e Lopakhins ar e exemplary businessme n fo r the era of free markets and privatisation. When Mariy a Knebel , Stanislavsky' s las t pupil , cam e t o th e Abbe y Theatre i n 196 8 t o direc t The Cherry Orchard, the Dubli n actor s wer e surprised tha t sh e didn' t requir e a samova r o n stage. 14 Th e samova r ha d always bee n th e indispensabl e toke n o f Chekhov' s foreignness . I n th e las t decades, however , i n productio n afte r production , th e samova r ha s bee n supplanted a s emblemati c pro p b y a n ol d Victrol a wit h a morning-glor y horn. Chekho v i s stil l associate d wit h th e past , bu t no t a specificall y Russian or historic past. Whatever reality the estates and garrison towns of Chekhov's play s hel d fo r it s first audiences , the y hav e no w take n o n a polysemic existence . The y transcen d thei r origin s t o becom e wha t Davi d Cole call s Mud tempus, a theatrical momen t i n whic h th e even t doe s no t need to be recreated because it is always happening. 15 The world evoked in a Chekhov pla y b y inventive modern director s confront s th e past wit h the present - sometime s b y painstakingl y reproducin g a bygon e age , a s i n Stein's recen t Uncle Vanya, sometime s b y transferrin g i t t o analogou s locales, as in Seagulls se t in Martha's Vineyar d o r Celti c Twiligh t Ireland , sometimes b y shatterin g th e pla y int o artifact s o f a cultura l legacy , a s i n Brace Up!. Interrupted meanin g an d fault y recollectio n ren d th e seamles s web of the Stanislavskia n simulacru m s o that Chekho v ou r contemporar y turns ou t t o hav e mor e i n commo n wit h Prous t an d Becket t tha n wit h Gorky. 189 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

LAURENCE SENELIC K

NOTES 1 A . Ya. Altshuller , 'Chekho v i Aleksandrinsk y teat r eg o vremeni, ' Russkaya literatura 3 , 1968, p. 169 . The actors named were Davydov as Ivanov, Sazonov as Prince Shabelsky and Vera Komissarzhevskaya a s Nina. 2 Th e exceptio n i s Ivanov, whose meanin g change s dependin g o n whethe r th e leading acto r portray s th e protagonis t a s a disillusioned idealis t (Vasil y Ka chalov, John Gielgud , Innokenty Smoktunovsky) , a manic clown (Joh n Wood) or a perfectly ordinary person (Evgeny Leonov). See Selected Glossary. 3 Se e chapter 5 in this volume. 4 Alekse y Arbuzov (1908-86) , Russian playwright. From his first succes s Tanya (1939), his bittersweet comedies, balancing the needs of the individuals agains t those o f society , had grea t appea l fo r Sovie t audiences . In the 1960 s his plays used nostalgi c theatrica l effect s t o get beyon d realism , an d i n the 1970 s h e opened a studio fo r youn g writer s whic h fostere d a whole generatio n o f ne w dramatists. Vikto r Rozo v (b . 1913) , Russia n playwright . Hi s pla y abou t a young man in wartime, Forever Alive (1956) becam e world famous a s the film The Cranes are Flying. Hi s greatest successe s in the Communist world cam e in the 1960 s and 1970 s with plays about generational conflict, th e elders compromised and the youth idealistic. Aleksandr Volodin (Aleksandr Lifshits, b. 1919), Russian playwright. Trained as a screen-writer, he used cinematic devices in his plays. H e expande d th e routin e Socialist-Realisti c agend a b y exploring the personal aspiration s o f his characters , an d move d awa y fro m uncritica l opti mism to a tragi-comic vision inspired by Cervantes and Shakespeare. 5 Se e chapter 3 in this volume, note 10. 6 Th e Hamlet analog y wa s taken t o it s logica l extensio n b y Ron Daniel s a t the American Repertor y Theatre , Cambridge , Mass., 1989 , when h e directed bot h plays back-to-back with the same cast. 7 Osi p Mandelshtam , O pese A. Chekhova 'Dyadya Vanya' (1936) , Sobranie sochineny, Paris , 1981 , vol . IV , pp . 107-9 . Osi p Emilievic h Mandelshta m (1891-1938), Russia n poe t an d essayist , whos e fugitiv e remark s o n Chekho v are particularly insightful . 8 Sh . Sh. Bogatyrev, 'Chekho v v Chekhovslovakii,' Literaturnoe Nasledstvo 68, i960, pp. 760-2 .

9 Se e chapter 9 in this volume. 10 Se e chapter 1 1 in this volume. 11 Andre y Bely , 'The Cherry Orchard', in Laurenc e Senelick , ed. , Russian Dramatic Theory from Pushkin to the Symbolists, Austin, Tex., 1981. 12 Se e chapter 1 0 in this volume. 13 Se e chapter 1 4 in this volume. 14 Mariy a Knebel, "Vishnevy sad' v Irlandii,' Teatr 5, 1969, pp. 158-66 . 15 Davi d Cole , The Theatrical Event: a Mythos, a Vocabulary, a Perspective, Middletown, Conn., 1975, p. 8 .

190 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Directors' Chekhov SELECTED GLOSSAR Y MIKE ALFREDS , English director who founded th e Shared Experience Compan y of

Oxford i n 1975 ; hi s specialit y i s turnin g panorami c literar y work s int o dramatic experiment s i n actin g style . H e ha s directe d The Seagull, Crucibl e Theatre, Sheffield 1981 ; The Cherry Orchard, Roundhouse, London, 198 2 and at Th e Nationa l Theatr e 1985 ; Three Sisters, Bloomsbury Theatre , London , 1986; an d The Seagull, Lillian Bayliss Theatre, London, 1991. See Appendix 2. LINDSAY ANDERSO N (1923-94) , Englis h directo r an d critic , associate d wit h th e Royal Court Theatre, London (1957-72), where, with a minimum of decor, he created th e firs t production s o f man y 'Angr y Youn g Writers' . Influence d b y Brecht an d th e America n musical , h e gravitate d t o film , wher e hi s absurdis t panoramas o f Britis h lif e continu e t o confoun d reviewers . H e directe d The Seagull, Lyric Theatre , Londo n i n 197 5 an d The Cherry Orchard, Theatre Royal Haymarket, London in 1983. HOWARD BARKER (b . 1946) , English playwright , widel y produce d o n the Fringe; an exponen t o f catastrophi c theatre , confrontational , accusator y an d theatri cally eloquent . Withou t a specifi c politica l affiliation , hi s satir e attack s al l aspects of capitalist societ y and its marginalisation o f human beings. He wrote a version o f Uncle Vanya entitled (Uncle) Vanya for th e Wrestling Schoo l i n 1996. Se e Appendix 2. ANDREY BEL Y (Bori s Bugaev, 1880-1934) , Russian poet and critic. Although Bely wrote only two plays, the mysteries He That Is Come (1902) an d The Jaws of Night (1903) , he was a leading theorist o f drama, now supporting the Symbolist cause, now attacking it for it s lack of pragmatism. He worked closely with Meyerhold and later with Michael Chekhov. RICHARD BOLESLAVSK I (Boksla w Ryszard Szredniecki, 1887-1937) , Polish actor and director , a charte r membe r o f th e Mosco w Ar t Theatr e Firs t Studio . He settled i n Ne w Yor k i n 192 2 an d throug h lecture s an d writing s introduce d Stanislavsky's earl y idea s t o America n actors . Wit h Mari a Ouspenskay a h e founded th e America n Laborator y Theatr e (1923-30) , whic h taugh t thei r particular bran d o f th e System ; h e late r move d t o Hollywood , wher e h e directed fifteen films . PETER BROO K (b . 1925), English director. After a distinguished career at the Royal Shakespeare Company , Coven t Garde n an d i n th e commercial theatre , Brook began t o explor e th e avant-garde , firs t wit h hi s Theatr e o f Cruelt y seaso n resulting in his Marat/Sade (1964), and then with Orghast at Persepolis (1971) . In searc h o f a universa l languag e o f theatre , h e move d t o Pari s an d wit h a n international company has continued to experiment with the underlying myths of mankind. He directed La Cerisaie (The Cherry Orchard) a t Les Bouffes d u Nord, 1981 , whic h subsequently toured to Moscow. See Appendix 2. LEO (LEV) BULGAKO V (1888-1948) . A member of the Moscow Art Theatre when it visited the USA in 1922-4, he remained in New York with his wife, Barbara. For the rest o f his life, lik e s o many emigres, h e capitalised o n his past in the 191 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

LAURENCE SENELIC K

Russian theatr e t o ek e ou t a n existenc e a s acto r (Provincetow n Playhouse , Grand S t Theatre) , directo r (Yiddis h Ar t Theatre ) an d teache r (Bulgako v School of Stage Art). ROSE CAYLOR , wif e o f th e America n write r Be n Hecht , abridge d an d rewrot e Uncle Vanya to mak e Chekho v mor e presentabl e t o matine e goers . I n he r version, nothing goes unsaid. LIVIU CIULEI (b . 1923), Rumanian director , designer and actor, who after runnin g the Bulandr a Theatr e i n Buchares t (1963-72) , worke d al l ove r th e world , running th e Guthri e Theatr e i n Minneapoli s (1980-6 ) an d teachin g a t Ne w York University . H e returne d t o Rumani a i n 1990 . A believer i n retheatrica lising the theatre, he promoted a syncretic style of staging, with the director as the auteur, melding all elements to create an eclectic realism. ROBERTO CIULL I (b . 1934) , Italia n director , workin g chiefl y i n Germany . H e founded th e Theate r a n de r Ruh r i n Millheim (1982 ) a s a subsidise d bu t fre e and sociall y engage d ensemble , dedicate d t o presentin g th e contemporar y relevance o f plays . He promote s th e primac y o f th e acto r ove r th e dramatist , even though he chooses to stage highly literary drama. HAROLD CLURMA N (1901-82) , American director. After studyin g with Copeau in Paris, he co-founded th e Group Theatre in New York (1931 - 41) , devoted t o social progress an d a Stanislavskian approac h t o ensemble acting . In 196 6 he was appointed Directo r a t the Lincoln Cente r Repertor y Theatre . An admirer of French and Russian culture, Clurman was able to adapt his principles to the uses of the commercial Broadway stage. ALLA DEMIDOV A (b . 1936), Russian actress, who trained with Lyubimov an d was recruited b y him into th e Taganka. There sh e played leadin g parts i n most of his productions : Elmir e i n Tartuffe, Gertrud e i n Hamlet an d th e titl e rol e i n Tsvetaeva's Phaedra. Sh e has a n electrifyin g stag e presence , exudin g nervou s energy. See Appendix 2. OLEG EFREMOV/YEFREMO V (b . 1927), Russian acto r an d director . As co-founder of th e Sovremenni k (Contemporary ) Theatr e i n Mosco w i n 1958 , he was o n the cuttin g edg e o f youthfu l idealis m an d a cal l fo r simplicit y i n acting . I n 1970 h e too k ove r th e moribun d Mosco w Ar t Theatre , wher e h e trie d t o invigorate it s tradition s wit h greate r contemporaneity . O n hi s initiative , th e Art Theatre was divided into two separat e institutions (1987) . Amongst many other production s o f Chekhov' s work, h e directe d Uncle Vanya for th e MAT which visite d th e Nationa l Theatre , London , i n Septembe r 1989 . Se e Appendix 2. ANATOLY EFRO S (1925-87) , Russia n director , studen t o f Mari a Knebel . Hi s productions o f Radzinsk y an d Chekho v a t th e Lenko m Theatre , Mosco w (1963-7) create d a scandal; at the Malaya Bronnaya (1973-83 ) hi s inventive, improvisational treatmen t o f classic s an d modern s wer e accepte d mor e fo r their ow n values. He replaced Lyubimov a t the Taganka (1984-7) , a hopeless situation which led to a fatal heart attack. Amongst many other productions of Chekhov's work , h e directe d The Seagull a t Leni n Komsomo l Theatre , 192 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Directors' Chekhov Moscow, in 1966 , and The Cherry Orchard at the Taganka Theatre , Moscow in 1975. See Appendix 2. RICHARD EYR E (b . 1943) , Englis h director , whos e wor k i n Edinburg h an d Nottingham wo n him a reputation a s a champion o f controversial ne w plays. For the National Theatre he developed successful musicals , and, on Peter Hall's retirement in 1986, he was appointed Artistic Director there. His regime led to the development of smaller units, often headed by adventurous younger talents, and t o a more America n flavou r i n th e choic e o f repertoire . He directe d The Cherry Orchard in a version b y Trevor Griffith s a t Nottingha m Playhous e in 1977. See Appendix 2. PAVEL GAIDEBURO V (1877-1960) , Russian actor an d director, a law student who went into th e theatre t o brin g culture t o the people. In 190 5 h e and his wife, the actres s Skarskaya , founde d th e Firs t Itineran t Dramati c Theatre , whic h took the best of the modern repertoire, including avant-garde Symbolis t pieces, to th e farthes t reache s o f th e Empire . H e wa s on e o f th e firs t t o esche w figurative scener y for simpl e draperies . After th e Revolution, h e continued his activities, organising kolkhoz theatres and other travelling troupes. ANDRE GREGOR Y (b . c. 1930) , a prime move r i n th e America n theatrica l avant garde o f th e 1960 s an d earl y 1970s . His six-acto r company , Th e Manhatta n Project, offere d psychedelic , cartoon-like , highl y energise d version s o f Lewi s Carroll, Becket t an d Chekhov , praise d fo r ingenuit y an d damne d fo r infanti lism. Afte r man y year s a s a n actor , Gregor y returne d t o directin g wit h a deliberately unpolishe d Uncle Vanya which the n becam e Loui s Malle' s fil m Vanya on 4.2nd Street. See Appendix 3. TREVOR GRIFFITH S (b . 1935) , Englis h playwright , politicall y committe d t o a Gramsci-inspired socialis t agenda , wh o admit s t o preferrin g televisio n t o theatre as a means of communicating with the working classes. His best play is probably Comedians (1975) , whic h use s a grou p o f stand-u p comic s a s emblems o f politica l actio n an d inaction . H e wrot e a version o f The Cherry Orchard, directed b y Richar d Eyre , a t Nottingha m Playhous e i n 1977 . Se e chapters 9, 10, 15 and Appendix 2. JERZY GRZEGORZEWSK I (b . 1939), Polish director and scenographer, who worked at many important theatres, eventually running the Studio Theatre and Gallery in Warsaw . H e ha s stage d mos t o f th e grea t Polis h playwrights , a s wel l a s works b y Genet , Chekho v an d Shakespeare . H e i s considere d a 'Poe t o f th e Stage' by his colleagues, creating images which compete with origina l text. He directed The Seagull at Warsaw Studio Theatre in 1993. TYRONE GUTHRI E (1900-71) , Englis h director , whos e wit , tast e fo r actio n an d manipulation o f crowd s breathe d ne w life int o Elizabetha n dram a a t th e Ol d Vic, Sadlers Wells and many other traditional houses . He pioneered th e thrust stage at the Stratford Shakespear e Festival, Ontario (1953-7 ) a n d t n e Minnea polis Theatre (1963), inspiring the North American regional theatre movement. He directed Charles Laughton in The Cherry Orchard in 193 3. See Appendix 2. JED HARRI S (1900-79) , American producer, notoriou s fo r hi s abuse of actors and 193 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

LAURENCE SENELIC K

his flai r fo r commercia l success . I n th e 1920 s h e mad e hi s fortun e backin g sharp-edged comi c melodramas, Broadway (1926), The Royal Family (1927) and The Front Page (1928) . Then, t o confute hi s critics, he turned highbrow , producing Uncle Vanya (1930), Our Town (1938) and The Heiress (1947). VASILY KACHALO V (Shverubovich , 1875-1948) , Russia n actor , wh o joine d th e Moscow Ar t Theatr e i n 1899 . Although h e bega n i n suc h characte r role s a s Julius Caesar and Baron Tusenbach in Three Sisters, his good looks and velvety voice turned him into a kind of matinee idol and attracted female fan clubs. He was the natural choic e to play Hamlet, Bran d an d Chatsk y in Woe from Wit. Later in life, he was popular as a platform reader. See Appendix 2. EINO KALIM A (1882-1972) , Finnis h director , wh o becam e familia r wit h Stani slavski's work while a student in St Petersburg (1904-8) . Directing in Swedish, Norwegian an d Finnis h wit h a prolifi c repertoire , h e wa s instrumenta l i n introducing Chekhov and psychological realism to the Scandinavian stage. MANFRED KARG E (b . 1938). Beginning a s an East Germa n acto r an d playwright , he gaine d internationa l fam e a s a directo r i n collaboratio n (1963-83 ) wit h Matthias Langhoff . The y ruthlessl y modernise d classic s an d reverse d thei r value systems, their deliberate perversity sometime s reaching mythical proportions. MARIYA/MARIA KNEBE L (1898-1985) , Russia n actres s an d inspirin g teacher , trained a t the Moscow Art Theatre Secon d Studio (1921) . She began directin g at the Ar t Theatre i n 1935 , becoming chief directo r a t th e Centra l Children' s Theatre, Moscow , 1955-60 . I t i s believe d tha t Knebe l preserve d man y o f Stanislavsky's later ideas in a form unrevised by Soviet ideologues. OLGA KNIPPE R (1868-1959) , Russia n actress , wh o create d th e leadin g femal e roles in the Moscow Art Theatre productions o f Chekhov' s plays; she married Chekhov in 190 1 and a s his widow gained iconic statu s in the Sovie t theatre. Praised fo r he r delicac y an d charm , sh e wa s eventuall y discounte d b y Stanislavsky, wh o dislike d he r resistanc e t o hi s Syste m an d he r tendenc y t o oversweeten her roles. See Appendix 2. THEODORE KOMISARJEVSKY/FYODO R KOMISSARZHEVSK Y ( 1 8 8 2 - 1 9 5 4 ) , Russia n

director and writer who promoted the idea of a synthetic theatre that would seek the appropriate style for each playwright. After emigratin g to England in 1919, he naturalise d man y Modernis t Europea n theatrica l innovations , eve n a t the Shakespear e Memoria l Theatre , Stratford , an d popularise d Chekho v b y adapting hi m t o th e romanti c tast e o f th e averag e playgoer . H e wa s bot h 'teacher' an d husban d t o Pegg y Ashcrof t (1931-5 ) an d directe d he r i n The Seagull in which she played Nina, May 193 6. See Appendix 2. OTOMAR KREJC A (b . 1921), Czech directo r an d actor . Prominent i n the Nationa l Theatre, Prague , h e bega n t o experimen t wit h hi s ow n ensembl e an d th e scenographer Jose f Svobod a a t th e Divadl o z a Brano u (Theatr e Beyon d th e Gates, 1965-72) . Ou t o f favou r wit h th e Czec h authorities , h e worke d throughout Europe , disseminatin g a cruel , unsentimenta l Chekhov . Hi s favourite technique s involved making a collage of classic texts and keeping the
Directors' Chekhov whole compan y o n stag e durin g th e performance . H e returne d t o Pragu e i n 1990. See Appendix 2. JUTTA LAMP E (b . 1943), German actress , long associated with Peter Stein and the Berlin Schaubilhn e a s hi s leadin g lady . Alway s a dynami c an d versatil e performer i n suc h role s a s Rosalind, Solvei g an d especiall y Titani a i n Both o Strauss' The Park (1984), she matured into a remarkably affecting Ranevskaya , Alcmene and Virginia Woolf's Orlando. CHARLES LAUGHTO N (1899-1962) , Englis h acto r an d director . Afte r a distin guished career a s a character acto r o n the West End stage, at the Old Vic and the Comedi e Francaise , Laughton becam e a Hollywood star . This was insuffi cient to feed his considerable intellect, and he worked with Brecht on the world premiere o f Galileo (1947), eventuall y returnin g t o th e stag e t o pla y Under shaft, Lea r an d Bottom . H e playe d Lopakhi n i n Tyron e Guthrie' s 193 3 production of The Cherry Orchard, Old Vic, London. See Appendix 2. ELIZABETH LECOMPT E (b . 1944) , artisti c directo r fro m 197 9 o f th e America n experimental collective The Wooster Group, housed in New York's Performin g Garage. In collaboration, sh e and the members of the company compose plays heavily dependen t o n vide o technolog y an d th e wilfu l collisio n o f variou s media. Texts are fragmented t o create a theatre reality restructuring the relation between performer an d audience. EVA LE GALLIENN E (1899-1991) , America n actres s an d director . A n admire r o f Bernhardt, Dus e an d Komissarzhevskaya , sh e trie d t o introduc e a seriou s literary theatr e t o th e USA , foundin g th e Civi c Repertor y i n 1926 . Agains t great economi c odds , sh e manage d t o attrac t audience s t o respectabl e i f unimaginative staging s o f Chekhov , Molnar , Ibsen , Hauptman n an d Schiller , but failed to create a permanent company. See Appendix 2. BORIS LIVANO V (1904-72) , Russian actor and director, a gifted leading man at the Moscow Ar t Theatre , wit h a penchan t fo r comi c characte r roles ; i n Nemir ovich-Danchenko's Three Sisters (1940) hi s interpretatio n o f Solyon y a s a flamboyant figure of doo m becam e th e standar d reading . H e wa s on e o f th e first Sovie t directors to try and stage Dostoevsky's novels. See Appendix 2. ANDREY LOBANO V (1900-59) , Sovie t director , whos e earlies t work , stage d a t Simonov's Theatr e Studi o i n Moscow , displaye d a coars e applicatio n o f Marxism t o th e classics . Later , h e becam e a straightforwar d reliabl e expo nent o f Socialis t Realism , directin g th e first productio n o f Arbuzov' s Tanya YURY LYUBIMOV/LIUBIMO V (b

. 1917) , Russia n acto r an d director , th e guidin g genius o f th e Tagank a Theatr e i n Moscow . Somethin g o f a licensed rebel , he galvanised audience s i n th e 1970 s wit h production s usuall y base d o n non dramatic materia l an d featurin g stunnin g visua l metaphors : Ten Days That Shook the World, Hamlet with the chansonnier Vysotsky in the lead, and The Master and Margarita. Force d into exile, he repeated man y o f his successes in European and American cities, but after hi s return to Russia in 1992 he seemed out of touch with a post-glasnost world. 195 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

LAURENCE SENELIC K LOUIS MALL E (b

. 1932) , French film-maker . Firs t associate d wit h th e Ne w Wave of th e 1960s , hi s film s wer e distinguishe d b y fantasy , breathles s comed y (Zazie dans le Metro, i960: Viva Maria, 1965 ) an d a n interes t i n juvenil e sexuality (Le Souffle au Coeur, 1970; Pretty Baby, 1978) . Hi s experiment s with Andr e Gregory , th e two-hande d My Dinner with Andre an d Vanya on 42nd Street, mak e a virtu e o f restraine d simplicity . Se e chapte r 1 3 an d Appendix 3. DAVID MAME T (b . 1947) , America n playwrigh t an d director , co-founde r o f th e St Nicholas Theatre , Chicago , wher e h e bega n hi s career . American Buffalo (I975) propelle d hi m to the first rank o f dramatists , an d hi s subsequent work has bee n characterise d b y staccato , jargon-fille d dialogue , psychologica l vio lence, power games and an obsession with macho one-up-manship. He adapted Uncle Vanya for film in 1990, directed by Gregory Mosher. See chapter 1 3 and Appendix 3. VSEVOLOD MEYERHOL D (1874-1940) , Russian director and actor. Apprenticed at the Moscow Art Theatre, before th e Revolution Meyerhold was known for his experiments in hieratic Symbolist staging and commedia dell'arte techniques as well as sumptuous mounting s o f classical dram a an d opera . After th e Revolution, he promoted a proletarian theatre, with constructivist, functional scenery , acting base d o n biomechanics , an d text s fragmente d int o abstractions . H e created 33 Swoons in 193 5 consistin g o f The Proposal, The Bear and Jubilee (The Anniversary). See Appendix 2. JONATHAN MILLE R (b . 1934) , Englis h directo r an d physicia n wh o cam e t o prominence a s a membe r o f th e satirica l revu e Beyond the Fringe. Workin g usually wit h subsidise d companies , bot h dramati c an d operatic , h e prefer s unconventional readings and sharply detailed characterisations. Director of the Old Vi c from 1987-9 , hi s ambitiou s programm e faile d commercially , an d he has freelanced eve r since. He directed The Seagull at Nottingham Playhouse in 1968, and Chicheste r Festiva l Theatre in 1973 ; Three Sisters, Yvonn e Arnaud Theatre, Guildford, 1976 , and The Cherry Orchard. See Appendix 2. PAVEL MOCHALOV (1800-45) , Russian actor, known as the Russian Kean, because of hi s erraticall y impassione d performances . A s leading ma n o f th e Mosco w Maly (Little) Theatre, he was worshipped b y the merchant class, but sniffed a t by the cognoscenti for his lack of physical and emotional control. EIMUNTAS NEKROSIU S (b . 1952) , founde r o f th e Lithuania n Yout h Dramati c Theatre (1985) , note d fo r hi s roc k musicals . He becam e acclaime d whe n hi s work wa s see n throughout th e USSR in the 1980s , an d th e world tou r o f his Uncle Vanya was a triumph . Hi s untrammelle d imaginatio n an d th e visua l polyphony of his stage metaphors contribute to the exhilaration o f his productions. VLADIMIR NEMIROVICH-DANCHENK O (1850-1943) , Russian directo r an d playwright. Co-founder o f the Moscow Art Theatre (1896), he was more politically engaged and artistically advanced than his partner Stanislavsky. He introduced Chekhov to the Art Theatre, created a brilliantly simpl e staging for a two-part 196 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Directors' Chekhov Brothers Karamazov (1910), an d cannil y navigate d th e theatr e throug h th e shoals of Soviet bureaucracy. See Appendix 2. LAURENCE OLIVIE R (1907-89) , Englis h acto r an d director , lon g considere d th e paragon o f Shakespearea n players , th e Hamle t o f th e 1940s , bu t als o th e definitive Macbeth , Coriolanus , Oedipus, Titus Andronicus and Archie Rice in The Entertainer. Director o f th e Chicheste r Festiva l (1962-5 ) an d o f th e National Theatre , Londo n (1962-5) , Olivie r endowe d hi s characterisation s with polishe d technique , physica l agilit y an d sardoni c humour . H e playe d Vanya in W. G. Fay's 192 7 production, Birmingha m Repertory Production ; he directed The Proposal at the Old Vic, London, 1949; in 1963 he directed Uncle Vanya, Chichester, 1962 , an d the n a t th e Nationa l Theatre , 1968 , where h e played Astro v t o Michae l Redgrave' s Vanya. He directe d Three Sisters a t th e National Theatre in 1967, designed by Svoboda. See Appendices 2 and 3. TATIANA PAVLOW A (1893-1975) , Russia n actres s an d director , wh o ha d studie d with Stanislavsky , bu t durin g the Russian Civi l War emigrated t o Italy, where in 1 9 21 sh e bega n he r ow n troupe . Engagin g suc h compatriot s a s Nikola i Evreinov an d Pete r Sharoff , sh e introduce d Italian s t o Ostrovsk y (he r fa vourite), Chekhov, Gorky and Tolstoy. GEORGES PITOEF F (Georg y Pitoev , 1884-1939) . Georgian-bor n director , expa triated t o Paris in 1922 , where he and his wife Ludmilla expande d th e French repertory wit h minimalis t production s o f Chekhov , Pirandello , Shakespear e and Shaw . Believing in the artist a s visionary, Pitoeff , who m Coctea u called a saint o f th e theatre, imbued hi s performances wit h a luminous mysticism. See Appendix 2. NIKOS PSACHAROPOULO S (1928-89) , Greek-bor n America n director . A dram a professor a t Yale University, he founded th e Williamstown (Mass. ) Theatr e in 1955, as a place where established actors could perform th e classics during the summer season . Th e annua l recurrenc e enable d Psacharopoulos , whos e styl e ran to the emotional, to stage more Chekhov productions than any other North American director. RALPH RICHARDSON (1902-83) , Englis h actor, who won fame a s the bewildere d protagonist o f J. B. Priestley's enigmatic dramas. With Olivier , he co-managed the Ol d Vic, London (1944-7) , when h e was see n a s the super b exponen t of Cyrano, Falstaf f an d Peer Gynt. He played Vershinin in Three Sisters in 1951, Aldwych Theatre , London , directe d b y Pete r Ashmore . H e ripene d int o a n exceptionally mellow performer o f Pinter, Osborne and Storey. See Appendix 2. IVAN ROSTOVSTEV/ROSTOVSK Y (1873-1947) , Russia n directo r widel y experi enced on provincial stages. After the Revolution, he organised the first Moscow Workers' Theatr e an d simila r enterprise s throughou t th e USSR, settlin g eventually in Yaroslavl. One of the most important Sovie t directors outside the big cities, h e wa s distinguishe d fo r hi s production s o f Ostrovsky , Chekho v an d Gorky, which sedulously reproduced life before the Revolution. MICHEL SAINT-DENI S (1897-1971) , Frenc h actor , directo r an d pedagogue . Firs t working for hi s uncle Jacques Copeau, he founded th e Compagnie de s Quinze 197 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

LAURENCE SENELIC K

(1930-1), then moved to England, where he ran the Theatre School at the Old Vic (1946-52). His teaching became widely disseminated when he directed the Centre National Dramatique d e L'Est Strasbour g an d then the Juilliard Schoo l in New York. Saint-Denis' main concerns were with the actor' s virtuosity an d the discovery of style, the appropriate conduit for th e play's form an d content. He directed Peggy Ashcroft a s Irina i n a 193 8 production o f Three Sisters an d as Ranevskaya in The Cherry Orchard in 1961. See Appendix 2. ANDREI SERBA N (Andre j Serban , b. 1943), Rumanian director , a student o f Ciulei and a n assistan t o f Brook , h e made hi s name in the Off-Broadwa y theatr e of New Yor k (1969-89) , befor e returnin g t o Rumani a i n 1990 . Hi s syncreti c approach downplaye d th e lexica l meanin g o f th e dialogu e i n a n attemp t t o transform th e spoke n wor d int o emotiona l music . Consequently , hi s mos t recent work has been in opera. See Appendix 2 and p. 143 . ATHENE SEYLE R (1899-1990) , Englis h actress , witty an d sprightly , a specialist in high comedy. Over the course o f a long career (1909-66 ) sh e played mos t of the leadin g role s i n Shakespearean , Restoratio n an d eighteenth-centur y comedy, finishing u p with Arsenic and Old Lace. Her handbook, The Craft of Comedy (1944) , i s stil l a usefu l guid e t o actors . Sh e playe d Ranevskay a i n Tyrone Guthrie's The Cherry Orchard at the Old Vic, London, 193 3 and again in 1941 . Se e Appendix 2. ADOLF SHAPIR O (b . 1939) , Ukrainian-Jewis h director . Takin g ove r th e artisti c management o f th e Stat e Yout h Theatr e o f Rig a i n 1964 , h e becam e th e youngest chief directo r in the Soviet Union. Strongly influenced b y Vakhtangov and Italia n Neo-Realis t films , th e teaching s o f Mari a Knebe l an d Michae l Chekhov, h e trie d t o provid e 'complicate d theatr e fo r th e young' , expressin g life's contradictions an d a complex inner life. He also introduced Brecht to the Latvian stage . H e directe d The Cherry Orchard a t th e Bolsho y Dramati c Theatre, St Petersburg in 1992. PETER SHAROF F (Pyot r Sharov , 1886-1969) , Russia n emigre director . Afte r working as an actor with Stanislavsky and Meyerhold, he became a member of the expatriate Pragu e Grou p o f th e Mosco w Ar t Theatre. His production s of Chekhov, Gogol and Ostrovsky perpetuated Art Theatre traditions of discipline and ensemble in Italy (where he became a citizen), West Germany, Austria and Holland. SERGEY SOLYVOV , a forme r colleagu e o f Yur y Lyubimov , wh o wreste d th e Taganka Theatr e awa y fro m hi m i n th e perio d followin g th e collaps e o f th e Soviet Union. For nouveau riche audiences, he staged grossly luxurious productions, claiming he was humanising Chekhov. KONSTANTIN STANISLAVSK Y (Alekseyev , 1863-1938) , Russia n acto r an d di rector, co-founder o f the Moscow Art Theatre (1896) . As a director, he stressed subtext, ensembl e playin g an d th e creatio n o f atmosphere ; thi s approac h ha s proved successfu l i n stagin g Chekhov , bu t no t Shakespear e an d Moliere . Seeking a sourc e o f inspiratio n fo r th e acto r tha t woul d preven t tensio n an d lead to enhanced creativity , he was constantly formulatin g a System, which at 198 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Directors' Chekhov first relie d o n emotiona l memory , bu t late r emphasise d physica l action . Se e Appendix 2. PETER STEI N (b . 1937), German director, co-founder o f the collective Schaubilhn e am Hallesche n Ufe r i n Eas t Berli n (1970) , whic h becam e on e o f th e grea t theatres o f Europe . Stei n insiste d o n hi s compan y researchin g th e socio historical milieu of every play, but in time moved away from politica l activis m towards a more aesthetic historicised style . His justification t o his critic is that remembering is a political act . He directed Three Sisters a t Berlin Schaubilhn e in 198 4 an d The Cherry Orchard, whic h played at the International Chekho v Festival, Moscow, in 1992. See Appendix 2. LEE STRASBER G (1901-82) , Galician-bor n America n directo r an d actor , leadin g apostle o f Stanislavsk y i n th e US . Afte r studyin g wit h Boleslavski , h e co founded th e idealistic Group Theatre (1931) an d in 1949 began to teach at the Actors Studio, New York. More important as a pedagogue than as a director, he inspired severa l generations o f actor s with his highly individualized versio n of the Method, exhorting them to find their personal instrument. See Appendix 2. GIORGIO STREHLE R (1921-97) , Italian director, co-founder o f the Piccolo Teatro di Milan o (1947 ) an d artisti c directo r o f th e Theatr e d'Europe , Pari s (1982-9). A socially committed Brechtian, he was undogmatic in style, expert at finding exquisite visua l metaphor s i n hi s production s o f Goldoni , Shake speare an d Chekhov . A strai n o f melanchol y ra n throug h hi s bes t work , deriving fro m frustratio n a t th e inabilit y t o expres s al l o f life' s multiplicity . See Appendix 2. ROBERT STURU A (b . 1938), Georgian director, who infused worl d classics with the temperament and colour of Caucasian folklore. The underlying principle of his productions i s rhythm, an d th e stagin g i s almost choreographe d t o a musical soundtrack. H e i s bes t know n i n th e Wes t fo r hi s terrifyingl y totalitaria n Richard III (1979). See Appendix 2. TADASHI SUZUK I (b . 1939), Japanese director, noted for his intercultural amalgam s of play and production style. Working with texts by Shakespeare, Chekhov and Greek tragic poets, he borrows devices from No h and Kabuki and themes from pop an d classica l musi c t o provok e dissonanc e i n reception . I n 198 2 h e founded th e Tog a Festiva l t o showcas e hi s ne w work an d advanc e hi s actor training method . H e directe d bot h The Cherry Orchard and Three Sisters i n Toga in 1986. JOSEF SVOBOD A (b . 1920) , Czec h scenographer , lon g associate d wit h Otoma r Krejca at the Prague National Theatre and the Divadlo za Branou, though from 1963 h e worked outsid e Czechoslovakia . Considerin g scenograph y a s bot h a participant i n an d a function o f th e dramati c action , h e prefer s architectoni c spaces, complicated lighting and unusual building materials to express the play and implement the actors' movement. He designed Olivier's Three Sisters at the National Theatre, London, in 1967. See Appendices 2 and 4, and chapter 12. ALEKSANDER TAIRO V (Kornblit , 1885-1950) , Russia n director . Leade r o f th e Kamerny (Chamber ) Theatre , Moscow (1914-49) , he insisted o n the primacy 199 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

LAURENCE SENELIC K

of th e actor's physicality an d musica l principles in staging. His repertoire was eclectic, preferrin g non-Russia n authors : Kalidasa , Wilde , Scribe , Racine , Claudel, O'Neill , Shaw ; hi s highl y stylise d production s usuall y feature d hi s wife, Alisa Koonen. He directed The Seagull at the Kamerny Theatre, Moscow, 1944-5. See Appendix 2. GEORGY (GEORGI ) TOVSTONOGO V (1913-89) , Russia n director , th e imposin g head o f th e Bolshoi Dramatic Theatr e (BDT) , Leningrad fro m 1956 . Without abandoning realism, he found a way to synthesise Stanislavsky, Meyerhold and Brecht, imbuin g the classics with a lush lyricism an d ensemble playing. Adept at bot h th e tragi c an d grotesque , h e rediscovere d Dostoevsky , Gork y an d Chekhov for post-war Soviet audiences. See Appendix 2. HIROWATARI TSANETOSHI , Japanes e director , whos e Toky o Engek i ensembl e toured a curiously hybri d Seagull to Russi a i n 1993 . It respectfull y sough t t o engraft deepl y rooted national images on to a venerated foreign author . EVGENY/YEVGENY VAKHTANGO V (1883-1923) , Russia n acto r an d director ; studied wit h Stanislavsk y bu t preferre d fantasti c realism , a sharpl y etche d grotesquerie grounde d in genuine emotion. His masterpieces were Strindberg' s Erik XIV wit h Michae l Chekho v (1921) , Anski' s The Dybbuk stage d i n Hebrew with th e Habima Theatre , an d Gozzi' s Princess Turandot, a triumph of modernise d commedia dell'arte (both 1922) . H e directe d Chekhov' s The Wedding in 1921. See Appendix 2. ANTOINE VITE Z (1930-90) , Frenc h director , actin g teacher , poet , a studen t o f Russian capabl e o f makin g hi s ow n translations . H e bega n a s a Brechtia n apostle of people's theatre but , a s director o f the Theatre National d e Chaillot (1981-8) an d the Comedie Francaise (1988-90), developed a more elitist idea of mystica l artificiality . Inspire d b y postmoder n notion s o f disruptio n an d montage, h e ofte n encourage d actor s t o pla y agains t th e text , an d offere d interpretations o f coruscating if opaque intellectuality. He directed The Seagull at the Theatre National de Chaillot in 1984. See Appendix 2. GENRIETTA (HENRIETTA ) YANOVSKAY A (b . 1941), Russian director , who works in clos e collaboratio n wit h he r husban d Kam a Ginkas . A student o f Tovsto nogov, she is housed in the Moscow Art Theatre of the Young Spectator, where her stylise d approac h satirise d traditiona l Sovie t attitudes . A n Absurdis t adaptation (1987 ) o f Bulgakov' s Heart of a Dog (1925 ) bes t displaye d he r penchant for mordant and expressive stage pictures. PETER ZADE K (b . 1926) , Germa n directo r educate d i n England . Considere d a n enfant terrible, Zadek shocke d audience s a t th e man y Wes t Germa n stat e theatres he ran with his unconventional, provocative stagings . Telling the story is his motto, bu t in the process he tends to displace the emphasis. He directed The Cherry Orchard at Stuttgar t Staatstheate r i n 196 8 an d The Seagull in Bochum in 1973 . His 199 6 Vienna Cherry Orchard became a play about fou r women in pursuit of happiness.

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

i6 DONALD RAYFIEL D

Chekhov's storie s and the plays

Even t o thos e wh o loathe d Chekhov' s plays , hi s unorthodo x dram a wa s marked b y th e technique s o f a short-stor y write r wh o refuse d t o limi t hi s imagination t o th e confine s o f th e stag e o r mee t it s demand s fo r intrigue , denouement, climax , le t alon e recognis e it s genre s o f comed y an d tragedy . An all-controlling author-narrato r refuse d t o get off th e stage. In Novembe r 1889 th e actor-manage r Lensk y tol d Chekho v afte r th e rejectio n o f The Wood Demon b y th e Imperia l Theatr e Committe e no t t o writ e plays : 'I'l l say on e thing: write lon g stories . Your attitud e t o the stag e an d t o dramati c form i s to o contemptuous , yo u respec t the m to o littl e t o writ e a drama . This for m i s mor e difficul t tha n narrativ e form , bu t you , forgiv e me , hav e been too spoile d b y success to stud y dramati c for m p r o p e r l y . . . o r to com e to love it.' 1 The histor y o f Russia n dram a i s made , however , o f fool s wh o rushe d i n where angel s feare d t o trea d an d force d actor s an d audienc e t o tak e fro m the stag e wha t wa s previousl y foun d i n lyric s o r i n novels . Chekhov wa s a t times activel y hostil e t o th e theatr e (whic h h e ha d describe d a s a beer garden an d its denizens a s 'Machiavellis i n skirts'). Only when Nemirovich Danchenko an d Stanislavsk y forme d th e Moscow Ar t Theatre, an d showe d the same desire to repress actors' egoism and cliches an d th e same refusal t o let existin g stagecraf t confin e drama , coul d Chekho v us e o n dram a th e techniques wit h whic h h e had revolutionise d shor t stories . Understatement , ambiguity, inconsequentialit y mak e th e Chekhovia n shor t story : i t point s to, bu t refuse s t o ope n th e cupboar d wher e th e skeleto n i s concealed ; i t peters out . Many scene s typica l o f th e Chekhovia n shor t stor y ar e fundamenta l t o his plays : for instance , th e non-proposal , whe n a coupl e ar e lef t alon e i n a garden o r a roo m an d fai l t o agree , i s typical : w e fin d i t i n Ac t Tw o o f Uncle Vania an d Ac t Fou r o f The Cherry Orchard i n a for m recognisabl e from 'Verochka ' o f 188 7 t o Tonych ' o f 1899 . Th e structur e o f hi s prose , from hopefu l sprin g t o despairin g autumn , i s applie d t o drama . Off-stag e 203 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

DONALD RAYFIEL D

noises - th e night-watchma n bangin g a rail - tha t punctuat e Uncle Vania are foun d i n storie s suc h a s 'M y Life' . Th e smel l o f fis h waft s acros s th e stage a t the end o f Act Three in The Cherry Orchard just a s it punctuate s the conversation o f the hero of 'Th e Lady with th e Little Dog'. Moonlight changes th e moo d o f The Cherry Orchard as i t doe s tha t o f Tonych ' o r 'The Bishop'. There ar e als o difference s s o regula r betwee n th e play s an d th e storie s that they imply a deliberate link. For instance the doctor, with the exception of the eponymous hero in Tonych', is a martyred her o in Chekhov's prose. In each successive play (excepting The Wood Demon), however, the doctor becomes more clownish, more uncaring. In both narrative prose and drama the doctor is god, but the divinity of the Professor o f Medicine in 'A Dreary Story' belong s to a different pantheo n tha n the god represented b y Doctor Chebutykin. They are united only in their inability to help. There are , however , concession s t o th e stag e i n Chekhov' s transitio n from pros e to drama. In all the plays but The Cherry Orchard (although it sports both rifle an d revolver) a gunshot is a crucial event. Guns rarely fire in Chekhov' s prose , an d deat h come s mor e insidiously ; fo r th e play s th e instrument o f deat h (eve n i f i t misse s it s target ) i s dramaticall y graphic . Likewise, a main motor o f action in comedy, the servants who exceed their role, i s rarely foun d i n Chekhov' s prose , bu t i s the ke y t o th e comed y of even serious drama, like Three Sisters. Nevertheless, Chekhov's plays can best be understood throug h the shor t stories whos e characters , situations , technique s an d eve n phrase s the y recycle. This association appears in the first of Chekhov's major play s to be staged, Ivanov, a play written to a challenge from a theatre director, rather than nurtured by Chekhov's own work. Our understandin g o f Ivanov gain s fro m placin g i t wit h Chekhov' s 'Jewish' storie s o f th e mid-i88os , fro m 'Th e Slough ' (wher e a Jewis h moneylender swindle s and seduce s her Russian creditors) t o 'Tumbleweed ' (1887) wher e th e Jewis h hero , converte d t o Christianity , i s a cripple d wanderer. In the late 1880s, when pogroms first shook Russia and measures to enforce th e 'pale of settlement' in Moscow were underway, Ivanov was, like severa l Chekho v stories , a counter-attac k o n antisemitism . Lik e 'Tumbleweed', i t deal s wit h th e baptise d Jew : Sarra-Anna , lik e th e wandering Aleksandr in that story, is, as a baptised Jew, in the same gulf as the 'doctore d hors e an d pardone d thief', 2 cu t of f fro m he r family , an d infected wit h tuberculosis . Th e play' s sympath y fo r th e Jewish victi m i s a counterblast t o th e anti-Semiti c letter s Chekho v wa s the n receivin g fro m Suvorin's son Alexey Alexeyevich, wh o saw Jews in Russia a s 'fiv e millio n barrels of dynamite under the Kremlin',3 as a sexual and financial threat to 204 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov's stories and the plays the nation . I f suc h storie s a s 'Th e Slough ' contribute d t o tha t vie w of th e Jew, then Ivanov was an act of contrition, for the Jew is seen as victim, not oppressor. Th e sensitivitie s o f Russia n audience s sho w i n th e reaction s reported fro m performance s i n the provinces, where spectator s yelle d out , 'Jew girl, get what's coming to you.' 4 Unlike Ivanov, The Wood Demon wa s no t commissione d b y a theatre, and it s material , a s wel l a s th e circumstance s o f it s composition , sho w Chekhov vacillatin g betwee n nove l an d drama . Initiall y a collaboratio n with Alexe y Suvorin , Chekhov' s frien d an d publisher , i t i s lade n wit h biographical materia l (fro m th e Suvori n famil y an d fro m th e Lintvariovs , with who m th e Chekhov s wer e spendin g th e summe r o f 1888) . Commo n biographical sources link this play to stories written at that period (notabl y 'A Drear y Story') , jus t a s commo n source s lin k The Seagull to th e stor y 'Ariadna'. The Wood Demon i s organically linke d wit h stories , already writte n o r being composed , tha t ste m fro m Chekhov' s journe y i n 188 7 t o Kharko v and Taganrog . Tw o group s o f stor y relat e t o The Wood Demon. Firstly , stories that Chekhov wrote after his first return to the steppes and woods of his childhoo d - 'Panpipes' , 'Fortune' , an d 'Steppe ' - ar e a valedictor y celebration o f nature, irreversibl y destroye d b y human myopi a an d greed . The 'woo d demon' , a ma n wh o franticall y save s forest s an d repair s th e ecology, bot h natura l an d human , reflect s th e autho r dismaye d b y th e disappearance o f a childhood idyll. The wood demon' s speeche s reflect th e authorial person a o f th e storie s o f 188 7 an d 1888 . Th e othe r storie s relevant t o The Wood Demon ar e storie s o f alienation : notably ' A Dreary Story'. Chekhov worked on 'A Dreary Story' at the same time as The Wood Demon. The tragic first-person story and the melodramatic, idyllic comedy share, despit e divergen t genre s an d moods , bot h protagonist , a n elderl y professor tormenting himself and his family, and many scenes and images. The cult of nature in The Wood Demon wa s original in drama: it is the world's first 'green' play. Chekhov raised his conservationist's message from his storie s where th e narrator cite s the lament s o f simpl e countrymen an d here, in the play, made it the arguments of educated men. In 'Panpipes' the hero complains , 'The y ar e cuttin g th e forests , an d the y ar e burnin g an d drying u p an d nothin g ne w grows . Whateve r doe s gro w i s cu t dow n straight away ; it sprouts today an d tomorrow befor e yo u can blink people have felled it.' 5 Thi s i s lifted int o th e Wood Demon' s ple a t o Serebriakov : 'Don't d o i t . . . T o fell a thousand trees , to destro y the m fo r th e sak e of two o r thre e thousan d rouble s . . . s o tha t posterit y wil l curs e ou r barbarity!'6 Th e pla y take s u p theme s fro m Russia' s agricultura l an d horticultural journals, the threat of deforestation an d consequent degenera205 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

DONALD RAYFIEL D

tion in human life . The message of The Wood Demon, howeve r clumsy, is that th e destruction o f the environment an d o f people's lives by selfishnes s are closely linked processes. When in autumn 189 6 Chekhov, by miraculous surgery, extracted Uncle Vania from th e debri s o f The Wood Demon h e reinforced th e play's link s with th e earlier stories . We have the motif o f greyness standin g fo r stiflin g provinciality that we are to find in stories of the 1890s . In Act Three of the play Elen a burst s out : 'instea d o f huma n being s grey spot s wander about , you hear only trivialities, when they only know that they eat, drink, sleep'. The colou r gre y typifie s th e close d worl d o f th e Chekhovia n heroine : Elena's complaint anticipate s the despair of the Lady with the Little Dog in the stor y o f tha t name , an d explain s (a s in the story ) he r susceptibilit y t o the cynical enchanter. For Astrov's conservation speec h Chekhov strengthened the motifs of the Wood Demon (the n calle d D r Khrushchiov ) an d returne d t o hi s stories of late 1887 . Specific phrase s ar e to b e found i n 'Panpipes' . The narrative i n this stor y begin s wit h th e Woo d Demon' s moti f o f th e youn g birc h tree ; then the ranch-manager Melito n complain s tha t ove r forty year s th e bird s have been dying out, that onc e they had been more than the eye could take in (vidimo-nevidimo) - exactl y th e sam e flocks of bird s vidimo-nevidimo that Astro v cites. Meliton end s wit h th e sam e message lamenting destruc tion: compar e hi s 'Whateve r grows , the y hac k i t down , s o withou t en d until nothin g mor e i s left' t o Astrov' s ' A frozen hungr y sic k huma n bein g . . . destroys everything, not thinking o f the morrow. Almost everything is now destroyed.' In recycling earlie r stor y material, Chekho v raise s dialogu e fro m narra tive to drama, and language from peasant to intellectual register: he talks of 'degeneration', o f 'struggl e fo r existence' , a neo-Darwinia n vocabular y with which Chekhov ha d endowe d hi s Darwinist vo n Koren in 'The Duel' (1891). Th e battl e betwee n activis t Astro v an d quietis t Uncl e Vani a ha s many phase s tha t ste m fro m th e conflict , als o betwee n th e outlook s o f science an d o f art , betwee n vo n Koren an d Laevsky in that story . Another new factor i n Uncle Vania is that we now have a geographical co-ordinate : the Serebriakovs have decided to flee to Kharkov, a town which also figures at th e en d o f ' A Drear y Story ' wher e i t typifie s th e squalo r i n whic h th e disillusioned professor face s up to his imminent death. The Seagull, however, though written before the making of Uncle Vania, is the first completely Chekhovia n play : it owes nothing to the influence of others - o f Korsh or Suvorin - no r to considerations o f performance. In the making of The Seagull none of Chekhov's acto r o r theatre-director friend s had eve n the limite d sa y which Davydo v ha d i n the shapin g o f Ivanov or 206 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov's stories and the plays Svobodin i n th e birt h pang s o f The Wood Demon. Th e makin g o f The Seagull show s a story write r reckles s o f th e demand s o f anothe r medium , confronting th e incomprehension o f actor and audience. The Seagull i s even mor e intimat e tha n man y storie s o f th e first half o f the 1890s , for i t not onl y reproduces phrases , situation s an d characters of Chekhov's friend s an d associates , but , uniquel y i n th e author' s work , satirises himself . Eve n mor e tha n th e storie s 'Th e Grasshopper ' o r 'Ariadna', The Seagull incorporates, recognisabl y fo r thos e wh o wer e involved and for their intimates, many persons and situations in Chekhov's own privat e life . Despit e th e warnin g Chekho v ha d receive d fro m Lik a Mizinova afte r publishin g 'Th e Grasshopper' , tha t h e di d no t appreciat e what pai n h e cause d b y transposing pas t relationship s int o art , Chekho v went further. Hi s intense love life of the winter of 1893-4, t n e suffering s o f Lika Mizinova , pregnan t i n exile , th e relationshi p wit h Potapenko , hi s fellow write r (an d love r o f Mizinova) , th e attention s o f othe r women , notably Lidia Avilova, even the past of the Suvorin household (wher e a son committed suicid e in circumstances like Treplev's) were publicly exhibited. Not onl y i n th e writing , bu t i n th e production , The Seagull was a n instrument for distancing others, as had 'Ariadna' in the previous year. As a letter t o friends , The Seagull differ s fro m th e intimate storie s onl y i n tha t those who provided the material for fiction were to be confronted wit h that fiction no t individuall y an d i n private , i n thei r homes , bu t i n public , together, i n th e auditorium . Th e differenc e betwee n dram a an d narrativ e prose is in both text and reception. The parallel s whic h th e tex t o f The Seagull offers wit h Chekhov' s ow n writing ar e well known. Treple v in a n envious monologu e complain s tha t Trigorin has a set of tricks which make his writing easy: 'He has the neck of a broke n bottl e shinin g o n a weir an d th e dar k shado w o f a mill-wheel and there you have a moonlit night ' - a passage from Chekhov' s 'Wol f o f 1886. In January 1896, Lidia Avilova gave Chekhov a medal inscribed with page and line numbers from his last book: Chekhov consulted the book and found th e line s i n hi s 'Neighbours ' o f 1891 , 'If yo u shoul d nee d m y life , come and take it.' He gave that line to Trigorin's book, Days and Nights, to which Nina refer s o n a medallion, giving page and line numbers. Chekhov lent Avilova' s meda l t o th e actres s Komissarzhevskai a fo r th e Petersbur g production. There ar e parallels to o wit h Chekhov' s ow n letters: Trigorin's complaint to Nina abou t his life being a compulsive process, 'I must write, I must write, I must write', repeats word-for-word phrase s o f a letter fro m Chekhov to Mizinova in 1894. It is not just auto-reference tha t links The Seagull to Chekhov's prose. Its philosophical venture s ech o Chekho v th e narrator . Th e passin g o f huma n 207 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

DONALD RAYFIEL D

life ove r futur e era s int o a lonel y battl e betwee n goo d an d evil , th e development o f Treplev's play-within-a-play fro m a catalogue o f creature s to a cosmic vision of death reminds us of passages in 'Panpipes' of 188 7 or Ragin's musings in 'Ward No. 6'. It will develop into the satanic noises and lights of the story 'An Incident in Practice'. The effects o f Konstantin's play, the horn, the sulphur an d the glowing red eyes, are effects fro m Chekhov' s prose. The y recal l th e panpipe s o f 188 7 an d anticipat e th e devil' s eye s in 'An Incident in Practice'. In literar y allusion , too , The Seagull is strikingl y intertextual . Mos t prominent o f al l i s Maupassant . Maupassant' s storie s ar e reflecte d throughout Chekhov' s development . Th e put-upon prostitut e o f 'Boul e de Suif' is found i n early pieces such as 'The Chorus Girl ' or ' A Man Friend' ; Maupassant the ardent fisherman is reflected i n Chekhov's stories (e.g. 'The Burbot'); Maupassant's melodramati c stor y of the destructive supernatura l force 'L e Horla ' echoe d i n 'Th e Blac k Monk' . Maupassan t i s single d ou t for prais e anonymousl y i n ' A Drear y Story' , wher e th e Professo r o f Medicine prefer s 'Frenc h writers ' to inhibite d Russia n contemporaries . In 'A Woman' s Kingdom ' Maupassan t i s praise d wit h extravaganc e tha t verges on satire as a 'locomotive that runs you over'. The very opening lines of The Seagull continu e thi s tribute , fo r th e exchange, 'Wh y d o you wea r black' - 'I' m in mourning for my life', is distilled Maupassant's Bel-Ami. In Act One Treplev compares his horror o f vulgarity with Maupassant's panic attack a t the sight of the Eiffel Tower . Act Two quotes Maupassant's trave l writings Sur I'eau, while th e plo t lin e o f a youn g woma n seduce d an d abandoned b y a n olde r man , recapture d b y a n olde r woman , follow s a Maupassant pattern . The Seagull, more tha n reflectin g Chekhov' s prose , has a common source with it. Similarly, Shakespeare's Hamlet saturates Chekhov' s prose as much a s it does The Seagull. Most of Chekhov's prose up to 189 5 quotes and ponders Hamlet. Chekhov uses Hamlet's line of bewilderment, whe n faced wit h an actor merging with his role, 'What's Hecub a t o him and he to Hecuba?' It is no t jus t th e Hamle t rol e o f th e Russia n intellectual , tor n betwee n th e state he hates and the people he stands above; it is Hamlet, bemused by art, tormented b y sexuality , th e love r o f th e sea , wh o i s s o close t o Chekhov . The hero of 'Tumbleweed' an d Laevsky in 'The Duel' are Hamlets. Hamlet is no t quit e purge d i n The Seagull; Lopakhi n parodie s i t i n The Cherry Orchard, but after The Seagull it disappears from Chekhov' s late prose. While th e writer' s predicamen t i s not discusse d anywher e i n Chekhov' s published work , apar t fro m The Seagull, hi s prose reverts severa l times to the miserie s o f a provincia l actor . Th e earl y work , suc h a s ' A Mean s o f Sobering Up ' o r 'Th e Wallet' , treat s th e predicamen t grotesquel y o r 208 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov's stories and the plays farcically. I n 'A Dreary Story' , however, it is serious. Katia, the professor' s ward, lik e Nin a i n The Seagull, returns, change d beyon d recognitio n t o meet agai n th e ma n wh o i s mos t fon d o f her . He r privat e lif e an d he r illusions abou t stardo m ar e destroyed. Nina i n The Seagull is less wrecked than Katia. Full of stamina, intoxicated b y the joy of acting, as she travels from on e provincia l backwate r t o another , sh e i s nevertheles s a s muc h a victim of the theatre as Katia in 'A Dreary Story' . The later prose also sees the provincial theatr e as hell - whethe r the foyer o f the opera in 'The Lady with the Little Dog' o r the debut o f Kleopatra, dumbstruc k an d pregnant , in 'My Life'. In The Seagull Chekhov concludes a theme he had repeatedly turne d to: the suicide , o r suicida l protest , o f th e adolescen t intellectual . I t wa s broached a s a possible continuatio n t o th e stor y o f a boy, 'Th e Steppe' ; it was firs t realise d i n 'Volodia' , wher e Chekhov' s fina l versio n add s a fata l revolver shot to the adolescent's initial protest against his mother's love life - a stor y whic h distresse d Suvorin , whos e so n Volodi a ha d committe d suicide (followin g hi s mother' s example) , afte r hi s fathe r ha d ignore d th e comedy h e ha d jus t written . Konstanti n Treplev' s suicid e wa s sufficientl y like tha t o f th e real an d fictiona l Volodi a t o upse t Suvori n afte r watchin g the play's first performance. Suicide in The Seagull is a device to end a play, or a t leas t a third act , a s in Platonov, Ivanov o r The Wood Demon. I t is perhaps significant tha t after The Seagull Chekhov never uses suicide in the plots of his plays and in only one later story , 'O n Officia l Business ' does it even have secondary meaning. The Seagull o n 1 7 October 189 6 flopped: Chekhov wrot e n o ne w play for nearl y five years. Only after tw o triumphs a t the Moscow Art Theatre, in 1898 and 1899 , was Chekhov's confidence restore d an d the Moscow Art Theatre's pressur e fo r a ne w pla y sufficientl y strong . Three Sisters was composed i n a differen t atmosphere : Chekho v n o longe r neede d t o tak e theatrical conventions b y the horns. Nor doe s he use biographical materia l directly: i f anything , Three Sisters anticipates , rathe r tha n reflects , Chekhov's own marriage and family conflicts. More important was the fact that hi s creativ e energ y wa s no w spen t no t i n writin g ne w work , bu t i n selecting an d revisin g al l th e forme r wor k tha t coul d b e retrieve d fro m periodicals t o b e republished , unde r a ver y stringen t contract , b y Adol f Marx i n Petersburg . Th e positiv e effec t wa s tha t Chekho v reviewe d an d recycled earlie r themes , an d Three Sisters shows th e influenc e o f pros e excavated from th e past, as well as anticipation o f the few stories Chekhov was to write. English element s construc t Three Sisters. A biograph y o f th e Bronte s which Chekho v ha d read in 189 5 is one; so is The Geisha, an operetta b y 209 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

DONALD RAYFIEL D

Sidney Jones. The third Englis h (o r American element ) wa s the music-hal l song 'Tarara-boom-deay' , whic h sprea d fro m Americ a i n 189 1 t o al l Europe i n countless variations . In Englis h (an d i n French ) it s verse s wer e sung by a louche schoolgirl ('Not too shy and not too bold, Just the sort for sport I' m told' ) whil e a n enthusiasti c mal e choru s sing s 'Tarara-boom deay'. I n Chekhov' s wor k th e refrai n becam e a euphemis m fo r sexua l intercourse: in Russian versions the text was sadder. The main verse might be the story of a man fallen int o depravit y an d the chorus a bitter lament . The phrase 'Tarara-boom-deay ' ha d alread y serve d Chekho v a s a leitmotif in the stor y o f 189 3 'Bi g Volodia an d Littl e Volodia', wher e littl e Volodia seduces the heroine (wh o is married t o a Colonel) t o thi s motif. Later th e song wa s orchestrate d a s a n artiller y regimenta l march . Already , i n Chekhov's mind it was associated with a military setting (which he had first used in 'The Kiss' of 1887) and with seduction. Undoubtedly, the officers of Chekhov's fictional batter y in Three Sisters, a s they leave the northern town where the y hav e enchanted , an d disenchanted , th e thre e Prozoro v sisters , march ou t t o th e tun e o f 'Tarara-boom-deay' , th e ver y son g tha t D r Chebutykin sing s (as all Chekhovian males sing) to heighten the distress of the heroine to whose sexual liaison it alludes. The onl y Chekho v pla y se t i n a town , Three Sisters uses Chekhov' s provincial-town material . Kulygin, the Latin teacher, in his sycophancy, 'i n case anythin g migh t happen' , transpose s Beliko v i n 'Th e Ma n i n a Case'. The contrast betwee n Natasha an d the three sisters is the contrast betwee n predator an d pre y that recur s in Chekhov's lat e prose, an d continue s o n a more genteel leve l the rivalry o f sisters-in-la w s o deadly in 'I n the Ravine' of 1899. Even Natasha's green belt links her with the imagery of green that connotes deat h - th e gree n dres s an d eye s o f th e kille r Aksini a i n 'I n th e Ravine', features whic h make her seem like a wolf in a sheep-fold. Natash a breeds he r sisters-in-la w roo m b y room fro m th e house ; Aksinia doe s the same thing , despit e he r sterility , b y scaldin g he r sister-in-law' s bab y t o death. Bot h Natash a an d Aksini a destro y th e househol d int o whic h marriage ha s brough t them , an d leav e th e male s o n which th e househol d once relie d a s helples s degenerates . Ol d Tsybuki n an d Chebutyki n shar e more than the last syllables of their surnames: they end the story or the play in useles s senility . Similarly , th e so n o f th e household , th e policema n Anisim i n 'I n th e Ravine' , lik e Andre i th e would-b e professo r i n Three Sisters, i s disgrace d an d sidelined . Lik e Startse v i n Tonych' , Andre i degenerates scene by scene, fatter an d more ill-tempered a s the bourgeoisie envelops him ; lik e Chekhov' s lat e heroines , th e thre e sister s los e thei r accomplishments: Masha stop s playing the piano, Irina forgets he r Italian: school-teaching or marriage degrades the heroine.

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov's stories and the plays Nature too is doomed in Three Sisters as in all Chekhov's late work. The avenue of firs and the maple, doomed in Act Four of Three Sisters, lik e the birches i n Ac t One , giv e wa y t o Natasha' s flower-beds. This contras t o f noble tree s an d ignobl e flower-beds i s foun d i n 'Th e Hous e wit h th e Mezzanine' and the unfinished 'Disturbin g the Balance'. The ideologica l structur e o f Three Sisters reverts t o storie s fro m 'Th e Duel' to 'M y Life' . Th e philosophisin g o f Vershinin an d Tuzenbak h take s over the arguments of N. and Lida in 'The House with the Mezzanine' and of Misail and Blagovo in 'My Life'. The same discussion betwee n 'activist ' and 'quietist' , whether activit y is needed to bring about the millennium, or whether som e great possibilit y i n th e futur e wil l lea d u s there, make s th e conversation o f Vershini n an d Tuzenbak h i n fron t o f th e sister s a futil e mating display just as the artist an d Lida Volchaninova argu e their politics only to possess the soul of the nubile, vulnerable Misius. The dichotomy of 'My Life ' i s strongl y re-enacte d i n Three Sisters. Tuzenbakh's thirs t fo r manual work , his 'dropping-out ' fro m hi s barony an d his army career, his slow-witted goodnes s repeat, tragically and absurdly, the process by which Misail seek s moral peace ; Vershinin's affai r wit h Mash a an d hi s desertio n of her, his indifference t o the present an d speculations abou t the future ar e Blagovo's. Much of Three Sisters was recycled into prose. Chekhov's last story, 'The Bride' (or, more accurately, 'Th e Fiancee') is set in the same northern town . It too has three women, though arranged vertically as grandmother, mother and daughter (no t horizontally as three sisters), of which one tries to escape from a strangling relationship to the metropolis. Here too an unviable male called Andre i play s th e violi n a s a hobby . Her e too , th e girl' s mento r entreats he r to run awa y 'withou t lookin g round' (bez ogliadki), using the same phras e an d ton e tha t Chebutyki n gives , to o late , t o th e trappe d Andrei in Three Sisters. 'The Bride' is a bridge between Chekhov' s last two plays. It gives to The Cherry Orchard as muc h a s i t take s fro m Three Sisters. The malleabl e heroine, Nadia , ha s th e temperamen t o f Mash a i n Three Sisters and th e vulnerability o f Ania in The Cherry Orchard. Her ragged-trousered philan thropist-mentor, Sasha, gives the same advice, spouts the same anarchism and is a s patheticall y dependen t a s Trofimo v i n The Cherry Orchard. Much Cherry Orchard material comes from 'Th e Bride': the escape from a family heritage, from a neurotic mother and a ruined garden; the heroine who listens to a tubercular intellectua l denouncin g 'stench , bedbugs, cockroaches? Just like twenty years ago, no change.' 'The Bride' ends ambiguously, not showing us an y final scatterin g t o th e winds , bu t th e visio n o f th e futur e whic h enchants the heroine incorporates the same utopianism as Trofimov's.

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

DONALD RAYFIEL D

This las t pla y summarise s al l tha t Chekho v eve r wrote . Cherr y orchard s go back t o childhood memorie s o f souther n Russi a befor e th e deforestatio n of th e 1880s . I n 'Th e Steppe ' (1888 ) th e boy' s firs t sight s o n leavin g tow n prefigure tw o element s i n The Cherry Orchard, th e graveyar d an d th e cherry trees: the cosy , gree n cemetery , walle d i n b y cobblestones; you coul d se e cheerfu l white crosses and headstones over the wall, they were hidden in the greenery of the cherry trees and in the distance they seemed like white spots. Egorushka recalled that when the cherries flowered, these spots of white merged with the cherry blossom and became a sea of white; and when the cherries ripened, the white headstone s an d crosse s woul d b e spattere d wit h spot s a s scarle t a s blood. All day and all night Egorushka's father an d grandmother slep t under those cherry trees behind the cemetery wall.7 The mos t famou s effec t o f th e play , th e breakin g string , ha s a history . The imag e occur s i n th e epilogu e o f Tolstoy' s War and Peace, warnin g o f revolt t o come . Chekho v refer s t o i t i n hi s firs t play , an d the n i n storie s o f the steppe . I n Ac t Tw o o f The Cherry Orchard, whe n Gae v i s silence d b y younger listeners , w e hea r th e famou s 'nois e o f th e breakin g string' . 'Suddenly ther e i s a distan t sound , a s i f fro m th e sky : th e soun d o f a breaking strin g - dyin g away , sad ' (Ac t Two , The Cherry Orchard). Thi s sound come s fro m Chekhov' s storie s o f th e stepp e undermine d b y min e shafts an d hidde n cables . Gae v an d Trofimo v los e credibility , attributin g the nois e t o a hero n o r a n eagle-owl : Lopakhi n show s hi s solidarit y wit h the autho r b y identifyin g th e noise : 'Somewher e a lon g wa y off , i n th e mines, a winding cable has parted. ' 'Fortune' ha s a n ol d shepherd , lik e Firs, who remember s ominou s noises , and the 'broke n string ' o f The Cherry Orchard: In the quiet air , scattering ove r the steppe, a sound passed. Something in the distance groane d dreadfully , struc k a ston e an d ra n ove r th e steppe , goin g 'Takh, takh , takh. ' Whe n th e soun d die d away , th e ol d ma n looke d inquir ingly at Pantelei, who was standing unmoved, motionless. 'It's a bucket that's broken away in the mine shafts,' said the younger man. 8 'Tumbleweed' expand s th e significanc e o f the broken cable . You've seen people bein g lowered int o the sea m itself. You remember, when the horse is got going and the wheel made to turn, then one bucket goes over the pulley into the seam and the other comes up? Well, I got into a bucket, I begin to go down and you can imagine, suddenly I hear 'trrr'. The chain has broken and I flew hell bound. 9 The pros e o f 1887- 8 i s sometime s close r tha n th e earlie r play s t o The Cherry Orchard. Th e them e o f th e nunner y fo r whic h Vari a long s recall s

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov's stories and the plays the poetr y o f th e monaster y o f Sviaty e Gor y o f thos e earlie r stories , just a s Lopakhin's teasin g her , a s Hamlet tease s Ophelia , i s a devic e use d i n earlie r works. The primar y sourc e i n Chekhov' s pros e fo r The Cherry Orchard i s ' A Visit t o Friends' , whic h Chekho v wrot e i n Nice . Perhap s becaus e h e wrot e it i n Franc e an d ha d considerabl e annoyanc e ove r th e proofs , Chekho v took a dislik e t o thi s piece , th e onl y lat e stor y tha t h e exclude d fro m hi s Collected Works. Possibly , h e wa s embarrasse d b y parallel s betwee n th e characters an d th e Kiselio v family , no w facin g ruin , o f Babkino ; certainly , he re-use d fundamenta l element s o f th e plot , speeche s an d setting s i n The Cherry Orchard fiv e years later . Readers hav e n o ground s fo r regardin g ' A Visit t o Friends ' a s inferio r work. Th e stor y take s u p th e them e o f 'Verochka ' o f 1887 . A loving , beautiful gir l attract s th e hero , ye t h e canno t fin d i n hi m th e respons e tha t the girl and th e scene ought to arouse, and he flees. This theme is elaborate d in Tonych ' a t th e en d o f th e year , an d scene s o f Tonych' , especiall y th e moonlit wai t i n a cemeter y a t night , follo w o n fro m ' A Visit t o Friends' , whose hero , th e lawye r Podgorin , reluctantl y accept s a n invitatio n t o sta y with th e Losevs . He know s the y hope h e will bai l them fro m thei r financial mess by marrying Tatian a Loseva' s sister , Nadezhda . The Losevs ' bankruptc y an d th e auctio n arrange d tha t summe r fo r thei r estate mak e th e backgroun d les s simpl e than tha t o f 'Verochka' , linkin g th e story instea d wit h th e irresponsibilit y an d doo m tha t overhan g Gae v an d Ranevskaia's cherry orchard. Expected to give money and advice, Podgorin is inhibited, jus t a s Lopakhin, th e play implies, realises that b y marrying Varia he will have to bail out the orchard's owners. In the story the mood o f love is spoilt no t onl y b y thi s ill-conceale d imminenc e o f disaster ; anothe r guest , Varia, onc e clos e t o Podgorin , casuall y recite s poem s sh e use d t o know . Quotation i s common i n al l Chekhov' s work ; her e th e poetr y i s disturbing . Varia speaks Nekrasov's lines about the railway, for Nekrasov and Chekhov a double-edged symbo l o f linking an d breaking , o f progress an d oppression : Straight is the track: the embankments are narrow, There are poles and rails and bridges, And by the sides, nothing but Russian bones? The Russian people have borne enough, They've borne this iron road as well They'll bear the lot - an d lay out for themselves A broad clear road with their chests . . .10 Nekrasov i s jus t a s disturbin g i n Ac t Tw o o f The Cherry Orchard: a beggar, wit h hi s verse s abou t 'you r sufferin g brother' , make s Ranevskai a 213 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

DONALD RAYFIEL D

spill her purse. With line s from Nekrasov , likewise , the marching worker s of 'O n Officia l Business' , the oppresse d o f 'I n th e Ravine' , burs t int o th e gentry's nightmares. In 'A Visit to Friends' Podgorin cannot respond t o the allurements of Nadezhda, just as Lopakhin is morally paralysed whe n shut into the nursery with Varia. There is a nocturnal scene in the garden, one of Chekhov's finest evocation s o f moonlight (lik e the moonlit end of Act Two of The Cherry Orchard) a s Nadezhda waits . The black shado w o f a statue contrasts wit h he r whit e figur e an d create s a n illusio n o f peac e an d melancholy. The birds - corncrakes , quail and cuckoo - mak e the same call to life as they do in 'Peasants' and 'I n the Ravine'. But Podgorin feels onl y his 'inability to take' - th e weakness o f the Chekhovian hero. He longs for a woman who will fit in with the ideas of the Nekrasov poem, offering no t love bu t 'new , high , rationa l form s o f life' , promisin g somethin g o f th e dream-world 'o n the eve of which we are perhaps now living and of which we sometime s hav e a premonition' . Th e drea m o f th e future , whic h captivates Podgorin as it does Trofimov i n The Cherry Orchard, blind s this hero a s wel l t o th e presen t an d make s hi m impotent . H e i s not save d b y prescience of 'new forms'; he is damned by his 'inability to take'. Podgorin thus combine s th e cautio n o f Lopakhi n wit h th e puritanica l idealis m o f Trofimov. Ranevskaia eve n achieves tragic grandeur whe n she echoes the words of the heroine of 'A Visit to Friends' by appealing to the memory o f the dead, from he r grandfathe r t o he r son . Sh e declare s t o Trofimov : ' I wa s bor n here, my father an d mothe r live d here , my grandfather? I love this house. Without the cherry orchard I can't make sense of my life.' Likewise , Tania Loseva declare s t o Podgorin : ' I swea r t o yo u b y al l tha t i s sacred, b y the happiness o f my children, I can't liv e without Kuzminki ! I was bor n here, this i s m y nest , an d i f the y tak e i t fro m me , I shan' t survive , I'l l di e o f despair.' An d to this plea bot h male s offe r th e sam e trite consolation o f ' a new life' . Eve n mor e tha n Chekhov' s othe r plays , The Cherry Orchard synthesises the predicaments o f every stor y of loss and disillusio n into one final black comedy, whose solution for a lost cause are the blows of the axe.

NOTES The transliteratio n use d i s th e Britis h one , a s use d i n The Slavonic and East European Review. The storie s discusse d ar e t o b e found i n Hingley's The Oxford Chekhov, Wilks' four-volume collectio n for Penguin , an d the revised translation of Constance Garnett' s stories , b y th e autho r o f thi s chapter . Detail s o f thes e collections ma y b e foun d i n th e Bibliography . Se e Appendi x i fo r variation s o f translation and titles. 214 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov's stories and the plays 1 A . P. Chekhov, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem Moscow, 1974-87 : sochineniia, Works (henceforth: Soch.) xn, 385. 2 Ivanov, Act One, Scene iv (Soch. xii, 14). 3 Se e Rossiiskaia gosudarstvennaia biblioteka: fond 331 opis' 5 9 item jia-b (letters from A. A. Suvorin to A. P. Chekhov), Autumn 1888, p. 21 . 4 Se e Perepiska A. P. Chekhova i O. L. Knipper vol. 1, Moscow, 1934 , p. 211. Newspaper cutting attached to Chekhov's letter of 14 October 1900. 5 Soch. vi, 277. 6 The Wood-Demon, Act Three, Scene xn, (Soch. xn, 177). 7 The Steppe, ch. 1 (Soch. vn, 14). 8 Soch. vi, 215. 9 Soch. vi, 260. 10 Soch. x, 13. Quoted from Nekrasov's poem Zheleznaia doroga.

215 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

CYNTHIA MARS H

The stage representation o f Chekhov's wome n

This is not the innocuous subject it may seem at first glance. Representation in ar t ha s a lon g an d debate d history ; representatio n i n th e theatr e i s complex an d is now being systematised b y performance theory . Moreover, isolating wome n character s entail s anothe r specialise d are a o f criticism . Feminist approache s t o literatur e an d th e theatr e hav e ensure d closel y argued views from bot h male and female critics, who have been made wary of gender-centred interest s an d judgements. I find mysel f i n the position of a woman schola r writing about women . It is almost certain that I will fai l to mee t th e expectations , whethe r negativ e o r positive , o f a t leas t som e sections of the readership o f this book . I shall approach thi s topic wishing neither to engage with the heavily jargonised language used in performanc e theory, no r t o assum e a stanc e whic h i s feminis t o r anti-feminist , bu t t o acknowledge and to have learnt from each one. In its essence, representation encompasse s notion s o f mimesis (imitatio n of reality) , comprehensivenes s i n relatio n t o existin g socia l norms , an d formal issues . Di d Chekhov' s representatio n o f hi s wome n character s conform wit h thes e existing norms? Di d hi s representing proces s confor m with existing theatrical convention? O r did he offer a radical alternative in both area s ? The approach her e rests o n a concept o f representation whic h covers th e whol e proces s fro m creatio n throug h t o perception . I n th e representing proces s th e creativ e par t i s separat e fro m perceptio n i n tha t the agent of each is separate. The artist creates (and in so doing represents), the receiver perceive s (an d in so doing tests an d complete s th e representa tion). Th e 'gap ' whic h result s fro m thi s divisio n (o r a s th e languag e o f semiotics view s it , th e differenc e betwee n signifier and signified), i t i s argued, ensure s th e endles s variet y o f interpretatio n t o whic h ar t i s subject.1 Did Chekhov utilise this 'gap' to mould audience perception? The genre an d perio d o f his plays offe r th e major determinin g facto r i n an analysis of Chekhov's representation of his women characters. Chekhov's plays ar e generally regarde d a s realist wit h som e naturalist influence . Th e 216 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

The stage representation of Chekhov's women latent implicatio n o f representatio n t o b e comprehensiv e o f differen t social types i s as important a s mimesis o f contemporar y reality . We need, therefore, firstl y t o categorise the women characters to test the comprehensiveness o f th e representation ; secondly , i n respons e t o ou r gender-drive n theme, we need t o examin e ho w the determinin g characteristi c o f female ness, sexuality , i s deal t wit h i n th e plays . Fo r ou r thir d poin t w e tur n t o formal issues : realist/naturalist theatr e a t the end o f the last century rested on a paradox whic h frequently dre w audienc e attentio n t o itself, the need to appea r rea l withi n a patently artificia l environment . W e need, then , t o explore ho w th e wome n character s participat e i n thi s self-reflection , particularly examinin g tha t 'gap ' i n th e representin g proces s betwee n creation an d perception . Fourthly , w e shal l discuss , agai n fo r th e reaso n that w e ar e i n a gender-determine d category , whethe r ther e i s significan t function ascribe d t o gende r i n th e representin g proces s an d whethe r w e arrive at a different readin g of the plays if we locate gender at the centre of our analysis. In conclusion, we shall consider whether the stage representation o f th e wome n character s wa s use d b y Chekho v a s par t o f a radica l agenda no t s o much t o mak e a social point , a s to chang e th e for m o f his plays. For presen t purpose s w e shal l concentrat e o n Chekhov' s fou r majo r plays: The Seagull (Chaika), Uncle Vania (Diadia Vania), Three Sisters (Tri sestry) an d The Cherry Orchard (Vishnevyi sad). Afte r a disastrou s performance a t th e Aleksandrinski i Theatr e i n S t Petersburg i n 1896 , th e first was revived in the opening season o f the Moscow Art Theatre (MAT ) in 1898-9 . Th e othe r thre e wer e al l given premiere s a t th e MAT , and th e final tw o were written for the MAT, often wit h specific performers i n mind. These factor s ar e importan t t o th e representationa l proces s fo r th e parti cular slant they have on the mise-en-scene. 2 The MAT was admired for the thorough attempt s a t authenticit y o f it s productions , base d o n extensiv e research int o period , local e an d manner s fo r determinin g desig n an d presentation. Thi s artisti c agend a ha s tended t o affec t perceptio n no t onl y of Chekhov' s play s bu t als o hi s approac h t o theatre . Their radica l aspect s have been masked. The first ste p i n ou r assessmen t o f th e wome n characters , then , i s t o establish what kind of categorisation is possible and appropriate. There is a wide range of age, and differing sociologica l types among the women in the four majo r plays . Th e younges t ar e Nin a (The Seagull), Irina (Three Sisters), Ania an d Duniash a (The Cherry Orchard), while th e oldes t ar e Mariia Vasil'evn a an d Marin a (Uncle Vania) and Anfis a (Three Sisters), and ther e ar e tw o middle-age d heroines , Arkadin a (The Seagull) and Ranevskaia (The Cherry Orchard). Th e othe r wome n ar e al l i n thei r 217 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

CYNTHIA MARS H

twenties: Mash a (The Seagull); Elena an d Soni a (Uncle Vania); Olg a Prozorov, Mash a Kuligin a an d Natash a (Three Sisters) and Vari a (The Cherry Orchard). Polin a (The Seagull) an d Charlott a (The Cherry Orchard) are o f indeterminat e age , excep t tha t Polin a ha s a grown-u p daughter. I n terms o f sociologica l typ e w e have servant s (Marina , Anfisa , arguably Varia ) an d som e o f thes e servin g wome n ar e non-speakin g part s (The Seagull, Three Sisters: Natasha's nursemai d an d maid) . Ther e ar e estate holders (Arkadina, Ranevskaia, Sonia), daughters of the military (the three sisters) , an estate manager' s wif e (Polina) , provincial teachers ' wives (Masha Medvedenko , Mash a Kuligina ) an d a provincia l mis s (baryshnia, Natasha). Finally , ther e ar e teachers : Olg a an d the n Irina , wh o aspire s t o become a teacher (Three Sisters, Ac t Four ) whils t workin g a s a clerk i n a telegraph offic e (Irin a - Three Sisters, Act Two) , a governess (Charlotta) , actresses (Arkadina , Nina) an d a passing stree t entertaine r (Three Sisters). These last five categories ar e the only ones who could b e said to earn their living. Chekhov's representatio n o f wome n i s problematised her e sinc e fe w o f these sociological niches sum up the type of person involved. In most cases there i s a discrepancy ; th e perso n i s ill-suite d t o th e jo b sh e hold s o r i s thirsting t o fre e hersel f fro m th e relationshi p implied . Thu s bot h Masha s hate their statu s a s teachers' wives, and bot h Olg a an d Irina find the work of a teache r an d telegrap h offic e clerk , respectively , onerou s an d unful filling. Only th e servant s an d actresse s see m satisfied ! Ther e ma y b e a deeper point to this general dissatisfaction whic h would raise a question of comparison: ar e th e wome n mor e dissatisfie d i n genera l tha n th e men ? There ar e poten t example s o f mal e dissatisfactio n i n Konstanti n (The Seagull), Vani a (Uncle Vania), Tuzenbac h an d Chebutyki n (Three Sisters), but notabl y i t i s th e me n wh o ar e drive n t o act s o f violenc e agains t themselves i n reaction t o their situation. 3 Th e sociologica l pictur e appear s to reflec t th e times i n that wome n ar e more economicall y dependen t tha n their male counterparts. Chekhov, however, asks his audience to admire the actresses an d entertainers , th e teachers , th e governes s an d th e telegrap h clerk b y making clea r th e fac t tha t the y ar e force d int o low-pai d o r low esteem occupations if they need or seek financial independence. In this view of women Chekhov denies existing norms of representation. We might also add tha t whil e ag e rang e seem s comprehensive , th e sociologica l rang e i s restricted to the relatively well heeled, their associates and their servants. With family roles, the representation appears as comprehensive as that of age and is not dictated by convention or prejudice. There are grandmothers, mothers, wives , aunts , nieces , sister s an d daughters , granddaughter s an d stepmothers. Ther e ar e faithfu l an d unfaithfu l wive s an d mistresses , fe w 218 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

The stage representation of Chekhov's women good mother s bu t prominen t ba d one s - fo r example , Arkadina (Seagull), Mariia Vasil'evn a (Uncle Vania) and Ranevskai a (The Cherry Orchard) and grandmothers , substitut e mothers , bu t notabl y n o ba d daughters . Good mother s ten d t o inhabit th e off-stag e world , o r perhaps ar e idolised because o f thi s - suc h a s Sonia' s mother , th e thre e sisters ' mother , Ranevskaia's mothe r o r Iasha's mother (The Cherry Orchard); Natash a i n Three Sisters seems a goo d mothe r bu t he r solicitud e usuall y ha s othe r motives. Father s an d husband s ten d t o b e absen t suc h a s Konstantin' s father, als o Arkadina's husband; the sisters' father, Prozorov ; Ania's father , also Ranevskaia's husband , an d he r Parisia n love r (The Cherry Orchard); or remote - Sonia' s father, Serebriakov , in Uncle Vania. We have chosen next to consider female sexuality since the fact that most of th e narrative s are , a t thei r simples t level , abou t lov e make s sexualit y germane to the representation of the women. We find their sexuality treated with insigh t an d exhibitin g som e differenc e fro m th e expecte d norms . As we migh t suspect , however , o f a male write r o f thi s perio d i n a genre a s public as theatre, the sexuality o f women i s mostly explored throug h thei r relationships with men or through the absence of such relationships. There are a number o f differen t level s of sexualit y whic h see m to b e determine d by age : th e rang e include s unawareness , unfulfilment , manipulatio n an d negation. T o begi n wit h w e find , a s w e migh t als o expec t fro m a lat e nineteenth-century writer , a range of innocents, or sexually unaware: Nina, Sonia, Irina , Olga , Ani a an d Varia . Eac h o f the m experience s traum a because o f her gender bu t t o a varying degree . The major differenc e fro m the expected norm comes in Chekhov's ironic treatment o f the outcome of the trauma . Nin a become s th e falle n woma n (bu t regenerate s herself) ; Sonia loves but is not loved in return; Irina is loved but doe s not love (and loses the person she might have loved, namely Tuzenbach); Olga would like to lov e (bu t become s a headmistress) ; Ani a love s (bu t i s denie d lov e an d told sh e must b e 'abov e love'). 4 Varia i s expected t o lov e but lack s sexua l attraction an d fail s t o elici t a proposal . A t th e nex t leve l th e wome n ar e sexually awar e bu t thei r desire s remai n unfulfille d o r ar e no t recognised : Masha, Polina , Elena , Mash a Kuligin a an d Duniasha . Bot h Masha s ar e married t o the wrong person - bot h teachers , Polina to an estate manager. They eac h lov e anothe r ma n bu t i t i s unclea r whethe r the y ar e al l unfaithful. Duniash a loves Iasha in vain. Elena, perhaps the most perceptive and moder n study , know s th e powe r o f he r sexualit y t o attrac t an d i s angered tha t thi s seem s t o b e th e onl y wa y sh e i s perceived b y men. She refuses t o be unfaithful, eve n though unhappily married. 5 Beyond this level come the sexually active women who are clearly shown to manipulat e other s t o achiev e thei r desires : Arkadina , Natash a an d 219 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

CYNTHIA MARS H

Ranevskaia. They are all mothers, but regarded as poor or at least not ideal mothers - particularl y Natasha . Lover s ar e par t o f th e norma l cours e o f events fo r thes e women . Arkadin a an d Natash a ar e condemned , bu t Ranevskaia i s largel y condoned . I n he r th e nor m i s overturne d a s sh e is presented a s a victim of her inability to control her sexuality: her lover has spent all her money, she loses the orchard to Lopakhin because he loves her and ha d possibl y though t t o contro l he r b y it s purchase . Sh e i s amaze d when sh e find s Trofimo v imperviou s t o he r sexua l advances. 6 Sh e i s undoubtedly place d a t th e centr e o f th e pla y whil e sh e i s in the gri p o f a dilemma. There is a clearly marked turning point, however, in the final ac t when sh e remarks tha t he r health ha s improved an d sh e is sleeping better . She is back in control, no longer a victim, an d much less interesting to the audience. Finally, ther e ar e th e elderly , Marii a Vasil'evna , Marin a an d Anfisa , whose sexuality has been negated. Mariia Vasil'evna's sexualit y is ironised in her unquestioning devotio n to Serebriakov whom the play unmasks as a fraud; th e other two are represented as in an apparently sexless old age. The remaining woman character in this category is the most challenging, and provides the major variatio n fro m th e predictability w e foresaw abou t women characters' relationships. Charlotta i s as uncertain o f her sexualit y as she is of her origins . She acts the siren with Pishchik in Act One o f The Cherry Orchard but sh e is clearly unimpressed b y his reaction, o r sh e can masquerade a s male by sporting huntin g gea r an d gun in Act Two, and in the brief sequence in the ball scene of Act Three where she appears in male attire an d undertakes a carnivalesque, mal e role as magician. She parodies motherhood b y dumpin g he r imaginar y cryin g bab y i n Ac t Four , an d b y having apparentl y transferre d he r affection s t o he r dog . Ther e i s n o exploration o f he r feeling s fo r othe r women . Sh e i s presente d a s remot e from them as she is from the male characters. The representatio n o f femal e sexuality , then , i s unconventiona l fo r th e period. Ou r thir d poin t o f discussio n i s whethe r th e wome n character s contribute t o an d referenc e th e artificialit y o f th e theatrica l exercis e common in realist and naturalist theatre, given their range and the dramatic treatment o f female sexuality . If they do , there is a direct poin t o f contac t with th e forma l aspect s o f th e plays . On e particula r techniqu e use d b y Chekhov invite s hi s audience to challenge th e characterisation. H e sets up his character s i n parallel . Th e implie d counterpoin t i s ofte n ironi c an d invites audience interrogation o f the behaviour o f the individuals involved . For example, among the women character s Arkadin a i s paired wit h Nina , as Masha i s with Polina (The Seagull); Elen a an d Soni a form a parallel, as do Marii a Vasil'evn a an d Marin a (Uncle Vania); Natasha i s juxtapose d

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

The stage representation of Chekhov's women with Masha (and possibly, as we shall argue, with Olga and Irina); Anfisa is counterpointed t o th e dea d sisters ' mothe r (Three Sisters); Ranevskai a i s paired wit h Duniasha , an d Ani a wit h Varia , leavin g Charlott a ou t o n a limb, though there are possibly implied comparisons with Ranevskaia (The Cherry Orchard). Such nea t pairing s als o operat e amon g th e mal e char acters, Konstanti n an d Trigori n (The Seagull), Astrov an d Vani a (Uncle Vania), fo r example . Ground s ar e usuall y provide d t o dra w th e paire d characters together, and the irony stems from difference s i n personality and destiny. For example, Duniasha's ladylike behaviou r i s seen as a parody of Ranevskaia's, but her attempt to gain a lover fails miserably ; or take Sonia and Elena, who are drawn together b y age and location, but Elena defend s herself fro m lov e while Soni a desperatel y seek s it . Thi s kin d o f treatmen t invites th e audienc e t o isolat e eac h character . Perceptio n o f thi s artific e leads to a questioning of the representation. The interesting parallel set-up between Natasha an d the three sisters is a strong indicatio n o f Chekhov' s awarenes s o f th e complexit y o f femal e sexuality a s wel l a s a devic e t o indicat e th e artificialit y o f th e theatrica l exercise. Eve n i f w e fin d th e crudenes s o f th e approac h disappointin g (preferring perhaps to see the complexity explored within the parameters of one individual) , th e presentatio n o f three sister s seem s a n attemp t t o capture th e muhifacetednes s o f thi s complexit y an d o f th e role s wome n play. Nowhere is this paralleled in the treatment o f the men. The sisters are united b y familial bonds , by their orphane d state , by their commonl y held dream o f Moscow , b y their genera l togethernes s i n th e actio n an d i n th e relationships tha t hav e develope d a s a result o f thei r mutua l unhappiness . Denying he r sexua l attractiveness , Olg a ha s assume d th e materna l role , while having no children of her own, and acknowledging that there is little likelihood sh e eve r will . He r teachin g o f youn g peopl e enable s he r t o sublimate he r sexuality , bu t sh e find s teachin g burdensome . Mash a i s discovering th e powe r o f he r physica l attractivenes s an d th e emotion s o f real love . Sh e is als o discoverin g tha t thi s experienc e whe n foun d wit h a lover who will leave her will onl y intensify he r unhappiness an d he r sense of entrapment . Irin a (i n denia l o f th e potenc y o f he r sexualit y afte r he r brush wit h Solenyi ) ha s chose n marriag e t o a ma n sh e doe s no t lov e i n order t o achiev e safet y an d independence . Bu t sh e i s denie d eve n tha t difficult solutio n by Tuzenbach's untimely death. Together th e thre e mak e a poten t stud y o f differen t aspect s o f femal e sexuality and social roles in their subjugation o f real feelings an d search for surrogate forms o f fulfilment. Thi s powerful interrelatio n amon g the sisters may also provide a reason for the exaggeration of Natasha. Not only is she exaggerated t o counterbalance th e integrated strengt h o f the sisters , but in

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

CYNTHIA MARS H

direct contrast to them she represents the type of woman who is willing to exploit he r sexualit y t o achiev e he r mostl y materia l aims . Sh e gains fro m inhabiting a mal e worl d whic h wil l happil y respon d t o he r desires . He r assertiveness leads her to victimise those who do not exploit their sexuality, something she , an d perhap s th e mal e societ y sh e inhabits , despises . Chekhov's exploratio n o f th e sexualit y o f th e thre e sister s reveal s th e limitations placed on those who find n o means, or desire, to integrate with a successfu l thrustin g mal e world . Thos e wh o rea d th e sisters ' stat e a s undermined b y their apparen t inabilit y t o bu y a train ticke t an d mov e t o Moscow ar e missin g th e point . Thos e wh o rejec t thi s successfu l thrustin g male world know that the path to female fulfilment doe s not lie in escape to Moscow o r wherever. The play doe s not sugges t where it doe s lie, but the reassertion o f th e sisters ' drea m o f Mosco w agains t th e diminishin g possibility o f realisatio n emphasise s i t a s a consciou s metapho r fo r thei r longing for fulfilment. Thu s the manner in which female sexuality is treated through the representation o f the three sisters invites the audience not only to challeng e contemporar y view s an d expectation s o f wome n bu t als o affects th e formal aspect s of the play. We shoul d examin e whethe r Chekhov' s treatmen t o f mal e sexualit y i s any different. Whil e there is no obvious parallel to the three sisters, certain of the male characters pos e question s fo r a patriarchal society . Konstantin (The Seagull), Vania (Uncle Vania), Andrei, Chebutykin, Tuzenbach (Three Sisters), Gaev an d Trofimo v (The Cherry Orchard) could al l be sai d t o fi t this framework fo r thei r denial of contemporary values. Thus this aspect of the stage representation of Chekhov's women, challenging current norms of female behaviour , may be seen as prophetic of change that may well come, and mor e surprisingly , perhaps , ma y lead t o a reconsideration o f som e of the male characters.7 It is no less significant tha t Chekho v began his mature exploration o f the female psych e with tw o actresses, Arkadina an d Nina . Any representatio n in the theatre has to be viewed in relation to the physicality (use of the body for characterisatio n an d t o affec t th e audience ) o f th e perso n playin g th e role. Chekhov is toying with spectacle and physicality in The Seagull when he counterpoint s th e established , matur e Arkadin a wit h th e aspiring , youthful Nina , and then juxtaposes this Nina with the older an d wiser but none the less still aspiring Nina at the end of the play. In addition, Arkadina directly foregrounds he r physicality by comparing her apparent youth with the seeming age of Masha at the beginning of Act Two of The Seagull.8 The words ar e addresse d t o Dor n a s th e on-stag e audience . I s Chekho v titillating o r challengin g th e mal e gaz e b y thi s gesture ? O n on e level , staging the competitive spirit between the two women is titillation, but this

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

The stage representation of Chekhov's women invitation t o gaz e is subverted b y the clarity wit h whic h i n its final scene s the play condemns the theatre for its treatment of Nina. In Uncle Vania the poin t i s more obviousl y made . Elena's grea t beaut y (or shoul d w e sa y poten t sexua l awarenes s an d inactivity ) i s contraste d with Sonia's plainness (o r should we say sexual innocence and activity). By this, the audience is invited to focus o n the physicality of the two actresse s playing the roles. Beauty attracts the male: Elena attracts Vania and Astrov, but Sonia fails to attract Astrov. The interesting point being made is that in this cas e th e femal e (Elena ) repulse s advances , bu t throug h a clever tric k almost falls prey to the male in Act Three.9 Looked at in this light, the play is a challeng e t o mal e demand s fo r beaut y i n women . Bu t a s a tragedy , Uncle Vania asks the audience equally to condemn the view that th e plain woman ha s he r fait h an d shoul d endur e (an d suppor t th e me n i n thei r grief). It is no accident that the play's title Uncle Vania implies the voice of Sonia, since she is the only one who has the right to refer to Vania as uncle. There is, however, a double edge: not only does the word 'uncle ' imply the displacement fro m bein g an individual i n his ow n right o f the eponymou s hero, bu t i t als o denie s t o th e equall y sufferin g Soni a an y clai m t o centr e stage i n th e famil y o r th e theatrica l event . Thei r tw o tragedie s ar e playe d out side by side. To sta y wit h Soni a fo r a moment , a recen t reviewe r asserte d wit h reference t o he r that 'n o actres s wil l convincingly pla y the part o f a n ugly girl'.10 Not onl y is there an in-built assumption tha t female performer s ar e not, or cannot be, ugly, but that it is ugliness which drives the characterisation of Sonia. Chekhov's implied invitation to separate the actress from th e role leads to interrogation o f the validity of a naturalist oriente d theatre. It is possible that Chekho v knew the members of the theatre audiences o f his own da y to o well . H e challenge d th e mal e gaz e an d it s obsessio n wit h beauty, bu t equall y th e challeng e wa s thrown t o femal e vanity . Perceivin g the wome n character s a s object s o f th e male gaze , desirabl e o r otherwise , and a s object s likel y t o caus e wome n t o dissociat e fro m them , offer s th e audience a moment i n which t o questio n th e realit y o f wha t i s presented . By providing suc h moment s Chekho v wa s bringin g th e whol e proces s o f representation withi n a naturalis t an d realis t framewor k int o question , distancing hi s audience fro m th e given performance an d allowin g them t o engage their critica l judgement. Th e male characters ar e subject t o simila r moments, bu t thes e opportunitie s ste m rarel y fro m mal e physicality, but from dwindlin g economi c resource s an d diminishin g status , bot h a t odd s with society' s concep t o f masculinity . However , tha t i s materia l fo r a separate study. Physicality o f th e actresse s i s focusse d upo n i n anothe r way . Chekho v 223 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

CYNTHIA MARS H

was alread y beginnin g t o distur b th e conventions o f realis t representatio n in Three Sisters. Th e obvious sculptin g o f the sisters at the end o f the play raises issue s abou t th e physicalit y o f th e actresses , an d th e relationshi p between the m a s actresses an d th e characters bein g created. Som e see this sculpting a s a deliberat e classica l reference. 11 However , i f w e vie w thi s posing a s statue s throug h th e pris m o f representatio n the n i t become s a n ironising of the vicarious, the 'standin g for' inheren t to drama, rather tha n a presentation o f the real. On th e one hand, Chekho v coul d b e seen to be divorcing th e signifie r fro m th e signified , a s actres s cease s t o b e th e character alread y create d i n th e play ; o n th e other , i n posin g the m h e reaches fo r a momen t o f petrificatio n wher e signifie r i s onl y wha t i s signified. I n bot h case s Chekho v i s manipulatin g th e 'gap ' i n th e repre senting process betwee n presentatio n an d perception . What i s noteworthy is that in both approaches the artificiality o f the theatrical process is clearly perceptible. At this point in any performance th e play breaks away from its present fictiona l worl d sinc e th e sister s ar e attemptin g t o penetrat e th e mystery o f th e future . A s a final e thi s i s a strok e o f genius : th e fictiona l world create d b y the pla y i s questioned, an d beyon d that , th e audienc e is invited to question the values attached to women (an d actresses) in the real world it inhabits. Similar reference to the artificiality o f the theatrical undertaking is found with increase d frequenc y i n Chekhov' s fina l play , The Cherry Orchard. Previously Chekho v ha d subscribe d overtl y t o a realis t an d naturalis t theatre. In The Cherry Orchard imitation o f realit y i s put unde r pressure , an approach in which the women characters play a seminal role. Firstly, as already noted, there is the engagement o f sympath y for Ranevskai a whos e actions are reprehensible but condoned. She is a bad mother; a woman who allows he r sexualit y t o lea d he r int o problem s whic h caus e he r t o los e control o f the situation ; th e woman wit h a lover wh o deceive s her , whom she loves but has tried to leave; the seducer o f students, the liar an d cheat, who disappear s t o Pari s wit h th e aunt' s mone y (an d th e residu e o f Lopakhin's payment from th e sale of the beloved orchard) a t the end of the play; the social snob unable to respond to the plain affection o f her forme r serf; th e woma n employe r wh o ha s no t organise d a positio n fo r he r destitute governess; and the mother wh o is probably desertin g her teenage daughter. I s the audienc e reall y mean t t o accep t tha t thes e negativ e trait s are countermanded o r excused by her nostalgia for her childhood and grief for a so n drowne d year s before ? A t th e ver y least , thes e tw o contrastin g emotions should make her feel ambivalent in her nostalgia, if not confused . And are these negative traits compensated by the fact that for three quarters of th e pla y sh e i s presente d a s a victi m o f circumstance s beyon d he r 224 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

The stage representation of Chekhov's women control? Surel y Ranevskai a raise s a questio n mar k ove r conventiona l characterisation of women and conventional attitudes to women. Secondly, again as noted above , there is Charlotta, whos e cross-dressin g makes u s questio n no t onl y he r sexuality , bu t eve n he r reality . Wha t i s Charlotta's representativ e functio n withi n a realis t theatre ? Sh e ca n b e dismissed a s a comic addition, an entertainer, bu t these descriptions hardly contain he r eccentricity . He r functio n i s t o rais e a questio n mar k ove r realist theatr e a s much a s ove r femaleness . He r cross-dressing , he r uncer tainty a s t o wh o sh e is , her rootlessnes s (eve n a t th e en d o f th e pla y he r future remain s th e most uncertain) , al l threaten th e stabilit y o f the realist , and mor e especiall y th e naturalis t framework , wher e characte r i s deepl y dependent upo n environmen t an d wome n regarde d a s particularl y con tained within it. Of all the women characters, possibly of all the characters, Charlotta i s th e on e wh o mos t force s th e pla y t o regar d itself , an d t o exploit that ga p in the representation betwee n the creative process and the perception. Th e point s abou t thes e tw o wome n character s ar e par t o f a series of others which increasingly threaten the stability of the fictional an d stage world s o f The Cherry Orchard. Just a s th e sociologica l pictur e i s fragmenting s o th e stag e worl d question s th e desirabilit y o f th e photo graphic representatio n o f realit y implie d b y close d set s an d prosceniu m arch frames. Open landscapes, absent cherry orchards, breaking strings and the abandonmen t an d imminen t destructio n o f th e orchar d an d th e house raise endles s questio n marks . Th e ga p betwee n signifie r an d signifie d ha s begun to widen. We hav e alread y implie d response s t o th e fourt h questio n w e wis h t o raise. If we locate gender a t the centre o f ou r analysi s o f Chekhov's majo r plays do we reach interpretations which disturb the apparent verisimilitud e of th e representation ? Firstly , w e hav e commente d tha t th e character s (female) wh o ar e force d int o low-paid , low-estee m employmen t shoul d engage ou r admiratio n an d thu s rais e question s abou t th e patriarcha l society o f the time an d th e limitations i t imposed. Secondly , it i s apparen t that som e o f th e mal e character s migh t als o b e see n t o b e rejectin g th e values o f th e patriarcha l societ y the y inhabit . Resignation , despai r and/o r suicide ar e frequentl y symptom s associate d wit h thi s rejection . Certainl y the audienc e i s invited t o despis e th e thrustin g mal e o r thos e wh o believ e themselves s o t o be : suc h a s th e Trigorins , Serebriakovs , Protopopovs , Vershinins (possibly ) an d Lopakhin s o f Chekhov' s fictiona l pla y worlds . Therefore, it seems, Chekhov enables his audience to take a critical view of the gender-prescribed value s of his day. In these respects the representation of th e wome n character s play s a radica l rol e a t odd s wit h th e norm s o f imitation and verisimilitude. 225 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

CYNTHIA MARS H

My conclusion is, therefore, tha t throug h the women characters, as well as raisin g som e question s o f sociologica l an d politica l importance , Chekhov invites interrogation o f existing theatrical practice . Chekhov was writing a t a perio d whe n melodram a wa s a popula r form . Muc h o f hi s theatre wa s aime d a t rethinkin g melodramati c conten t an d th e melodra matic mode of performance. Th e stereotypical view of women proposed in melodrama wa s interrogated throug h the women characters he included in his plays. It is also notable tha t h e used a woman character , Charlotta , t o take th e questionin g furthe r an d interrogat e th e realis t an d naturalis t theatre t o whic h h e ha d himsel f subscribed . I t woul d b e inappropriate t o claim Chekho v a s a writer wit h a n understanding o f feminist issues . What we ca n clai m i s tha t th e treatmen t o f th e wome n character s contribute s significantly t o a wider theatrical agend a addresse d in the major plays . He brought hi s audience s fac e t o fac e wit h a paradox, th e parado x o f realis t and naturalis t 'representation' . Chekhov' s attentio n t o th e for m o f hi s theatre i s hi s mos t underrate d an d unexplore d quality , an d ye t b y con fronting thi s paradox, exemplified her e in the representation o f his women characters, h e opene d theatr e t o Modernis m an d t o th e experimentatio n that has marked and thrilled the twentieth century.

NOTES Unless otherwise attributed, translations are my own, and from N. F. Belchikov and others, eds. , Anton Chekhov, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem v 30 tomakh, Moscow, 1974-8 3 (Anton Chekhov, Collected Works and Letters in 30 volumes, Moscow, 1974-83) . This system of transliteration is that of System iv, The Library of Congress. 1 Stephe n J. Greenblatt, ed, Allegory and Representation, Baltimore and London, 1981, p . ix; se e Elain e Aston , Georg e Savona , Theatre as Sign System: A Semiotics of Text and Performance, Londo n an d Ne w York , 1991 , pp. 5-10 , for discussion of semiotic terminology in relation to theatre. 2 Fo r discussion of this term, see Patrice Pavis, 'Towards a Semiology of the Miseen-scene' (1980) , Languages of the Stage, New York, 1993, p. 134. 3 Carolin a D e Maegd-Soep, Chekhov and Women: Women in the Life and Work of Chekhov, Columbus, Ohio, 1987, p. 77. 4 The Cherry Orchard, A. P. Chekhov, 'Vishnevy sad', Works, Letters i^j^-H^, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem, vol. XII, Moscow, 1978, p. 227. 5 Elen a to Vania after he has expressed his desire to speak of his love at the end of Act One: 'This is unbearable', p . 74; Elena t o Astrov in Act Four: 'Al l I ask is one thing: think bette r o f me. I want yo u to respect me' , Uncle Vania, Works, vol. XIII , p . 110 .

6 Ranevskai a t o Trofimov: 'You'r e no t abov e love, just gree n behin d th e gills as old Fir s woul d say . Fanc y no t havin g a mistres s a t you r age!' , The Cherry Orchard, Works, vol. XIII, p. 235. 226 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

The stage representation of Chekhov's women 7 Fo r the sexual connotations of the song 'Tarara-boom-deay' in Three Sisters, see chapter 16 in this volume. 8 Arkadin a t o Masha an d Dorn: 'Let's stand side by side. You're twenty-two. I'm nearly doubl e that . Evgeni i Sergeich , who look s th e younger o f u s two?', The Seagull, Works, vol. XIII, p. 21 . 9 Astro v suddenly turns the tables on Elena in their scene in Act Three by accusing her o f mountin g a cunnin g pla n t o catc h him. H e classifie s he r a s a 'bir d o f prey', then even more demeaningly as a 'beautiful fluff y weasel' . He sees himself as a 'wis e ol d sparrow ' fo r havin g guesse d he r plan ! (Uncle Vania, Works, vol. XIII , p . 96) .

10 D . Rayfield , Revie w o f fil m Vanya on 42nd Street, The Slavonic and East European Review, 74, 2, 1996, p. 395. 11 R . Peace, 'Chekhov' s "Moder n Classicism"' , The Slavonic and East European Review, 65, 1, 1987, pp. 22-3.

227 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

i8 VERA GOTTLIE B

Chekhov's comed y

'First o f al l I'd ge t my patients in a laughing moo d - an d onl y then would I begin to treat them.' 1

Chekhov's word s su m u p th e motivatio n fo r hi s comedy : laughte r a s medicine, an d a vital prerequisit e fo r an y treatmen t o f hi s fello w huma n beings. Implicit i s the sens e tha t laughte r - an d comed y - ar e restorative , and that the objectivity an d detachment which laughter may produce could inoculate u s agains t suc h huma n disease s a s pomposity , hypocrisy , self centredness, laziness, or - th e worst of all - wastin g life. It i s Doctor Chekho v wh o wrot e thos e words , an d beneat h the m lie s a serious bu t non-judgementa l sens e tha t laughte r i s curativ e an d healthy . Chekhov's comedy is therefore no t only a stylistic feature i n his works, but is also a vital part of his philosophy. It is the point where content an d for m meet, the one usually inseparabl e fro m th e other. And this, in turn, relate s to the subject matte r o f his works - no t the artificial an d complex, though enjoyable, plo t line s o f farce s b y Labich e o r Feydeau , o r thei r third-rat e imitators, bu t th e dail y live s o f ordinar y people . As he put i t himsel f i n a much-quoted letter: Why write that a person gets into a submarine an d goes to the North Pole to find some kin d o f reconciliatio n wit h humanity , whil e a t th e sam e tim e th e woman h e loves hurls herself of f th e neares t belfr y wit h a theatrical shriek ? All this is untrue an d doe s not happen i n real life. On e must write simpl y about how Pyotr Semyonovich got married to Marya Ivanovna. That's all.2 This approac h informe d al l o f hi s work , an d i s particularl y eviden t i n a series o f newspape r article s h e wrot e ove r 1883-5 , calle d Fragments of Moscow Life (Oskolki), i n which h e deal t wit h ever y possibl e aspec t o f lif e in Moscow whether : the positio n o f sho p assistant s an d factor y workers , th e hig h death-rat e amongst th e poor , th e insanitar y condition s o f th e house s an d streets , th e 228 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov's comedy unsatisfactory stat e o f th e cobble d roads , th e high-hande d attitude s o f th e water-carriers, th e extortio n o f th e undertakers , th e uncivilise d manner s o f the merchants, the absurd custom s of the middle classes, the vulgarity o f the popular press , th e villain y o f th e professiona l me n wh o won' t repa y thei r debts t o th e Societ y fo r Aidin g Need y Students , th e craz e fo r champio n runners, hypnotists , medium s an d 'thought-readers' , th e lamentable stat e of the theatre and actors . . .3

- a 'sociologica l survey ' perhap s equalle d onl y b y Zol a i n France , an d Dickens in England. And the point where fact an d fiction blend to produce the particula r kin d o f 'heightene d realism ' whic h wa s characteristi c o f Chekhov's writings. My use of the phrase 'non-judgemental ' abov e must b e contrasted wit h the mora l purpos e whic h pervade s th e work s o f Tolstoy , an d motivate s writing as seemingly diverse as Anna Karenina (1873-77 ) ~ a nd hi s stories for children . A s Tolstoy wrot e i n the prefac e t o hi s Improving Stories for Children (1887): 'a writer does not write the truth who describes only what has happened an d what this or that man has done, but he who shows what people do that is right - tha t is, in accord with God's will, and what people do wrong - tha t is, contrary to God's will'. Chekhov's approach , clarifie d afte r hi s journe y i n 189 0 t o th e pena l colony o f Sakhalin , wa s a rebutta l o f Tolstoy' s philosophy . I n 189 4 h e crystallised th e difference s no t onl y betwee n himsel f an d Tolsto y - bu t between hi s ow n writin g an d tha t o f th e majorit y o f Russia n classica l literature fro m Pushki n an d Lermonto v onwards , where literature an d ar t had, t o varyin g degrees , bee n th e mean s o f carryin g a 'message' , and of expressing th e writer' s ow n commitment . Thu s i n anothe r ofte n quote d letter, Chekhov wrote: Tolstoy's philosoph y move d m e deepl y an d possesse d m e fo r si x o r seve n years. It was not s o much hi s basic ideas which ha d a n effect o n me . . . i t was his wa y o f expressin g himself , hi s commo n sense , an d probabl y a kin d o f hypnotism too . Bu t no w somethin g i n m e protests . Prudenc e an d justic e tel l me ther e i s mor e lov e fo r mankin d i n electricit y an d steam , tha n i n chastit y and vegetarianism. 4

In this sense , Chekho v wa s more 'i n tune ' wit h Ibsen , who wrote : ' I onl y ask. My task is not to answer' (Letter in Rhyme).5 The 'morality ' implici t i n comed y i s a complex area , an d on e whic h i s not altogethe r clarifie d b y Henri Bergson's Laughter or George Meredith' s An Essay on Comedy. 6 Instead , i t mus t b e see n withi n th e contex t o f Russian literatur e an d th e art s i n general - a context whic h place d o n the artist a particula r responsibility . A s Chekho v sai d abou t th e writing s o f Gogol: 'I t i s essential tha t Gogo l i s not brough t dow n t o th e leve l o f th e 229 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

VERA GOTTLIE B

people - bu t tha t th e peopl e ar e brough t u p t o th e leve l o f Gogol.' 7 This sense o f obligatio n inform s almos t al l Russian literatur e o f the eighteent h and nineteent h centuries , a resul t o f th e vas t disparit y betwee n th e aristocracy an d landowning classes - an d the peasants, onl y released fro m serfdom i n 1861 . I n som e instances , writer s suffere d imprisonmen t an d exile ( a fate no t invente d b y the Stalinis t regime) ; in othe r cases , suc h a s that o f Maxim Gorky , there was constant polic e surveillance. Although he had bee n nominated, th e Tsar refused t o authorise Gorky' s membership of the Academy of Sciences, causing both Chekhov and Korolenko to resign in protest. Thi s wa s on e o f severa l majo r disagreement s betwee n Chekho v and his publisher and friend, A . S. Suvorin. The other row concerned Zola's defence o f Alfre d Dreyfus , th e Frenc h Jewis h arm y office r accuse d o f treason an d sent to Devil's Island - th e French equivalent o f Sakhalin. The issue wa s on e whic h separate d th e reactionarie s fro m th e progressive s throughout Europ e - an d th e fac t tha t Chekho v cam e ou t publicl y i n support o f both Gork y an d Zola illustrate s clearl y his political stanc e and belief in protest, a factor whic h in turn relates to his philosophy. The relevanc e o f this , i n a chapte r o n comedy , i s t o se t th e contex t o f social an d eve n politica l though t whic h informe d Chekhov' s writing s though equally, it is evident that a t no time did he lose the detachment an d objectivity eithe r of a doctor - a man of science - o r of a detached observe r and analys t o f hi s contemporar y Russia . I t i s almos t impossibl e t o detec t Chekhov's dislik e o f a character i n his plays - except , perhaps , o f Ivanov , Natasha i n Three Sisters an d Yash a in The Cherry Orchard. Wit h most of his characters, their three-dimensionalit y result s in a 'realistic' perspective, with decent an d weak aspect s to each character, an d no sense of the 'blac k and white' which informed th e stereotypic characters an d plots of many of the contemporary popular comedies. But th e significanc e her e i s tha t Chekho v wa s no t writin g 'popula r comedies' - a facto r whic h goe s som e wa y t o explainin g th e negativ e reactions to the first performance s o f some of his plays. Accustomed to the stereotypic, audience s foun d dept h an d dimensionalit y o f character ; looking fo r conventiona l plots , hi s audience s ofte n foun d play s whic h seemed t o hav e n o plo t a t al l (althoug h thi s wa s les s tru e o f th e one-ac t vaudevilles); expectin g th e physicalit y and escapis m o f farce , Chekhov' s audience foun d themselve s require d t o observ e peopl e ver y muc h lik e themselves. Thus, to turn roun d a quotation originall y applie d t o Beckett : 'Chekhov's audienc e ar e Chekhov characters in a Chekhov situation. ' And seeking escapism, th e audienc e ofte n foun d themselve s viewin g character s who themselve s wer e longin g fo r 'escape' . This i s true o f Nyukhi n i n On the Harmfulness of Tobacco; o f Vanya, Astrov and Sonya in Uncle Vanya; 230 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov's comedy of Andre y i n Three Sisters - and th e whol e concep t o f 't o Moscow ' a s an image of escap e in the sisters ' longing for anothe r an d bette r life . It is also true o f Nin a an d Konstanti n i n The Seagull, an d eve n Mash a an d Medvedenko, whil e i t i s a majo r leitmoti f i n The Cherry Orchard, with variations o n th e them e fro m Charlott a Ivanovna , Dunyasha , Vary a an d Lopakhin, albei t differently , an d from Any a an d Trofimov , agai n individually motivated and treated. All of this may not immediately seem to relate to the question of comedy. But th e 'comedy ' lie s i n th e disparit y betwee n aspiratio n an d reality , o r between desir e an d fulfilment . I n mos t cases , ther e i s littl e t o sto p th e characters fro m doin g wha t the y wan t - excep t themselves . An d this , centrally, i s where th e keynot e o f Chekhov' s comed y lies . Thus, i n on e of the many disagreement s betwee n Chekho v an d Stanislavsk y ove r interpretation, Chekhov reportedly said: Take m y Cherry Orchard. - Is it my Cherry Orchard? Apar t fro m tw o or three parts , nothing in it is mine. I am describing life, ordinar y life , and not blank depression . The y either tur n me into a cry-baby o r into a bore. They invent somethin g abou t m e ou t o f thei r ow n heads, whateve r the y like , something I never though t o r dreamed about . This is beginning to make me angry.8 Or t o quot e perhap s th e most significant commen t Chekho v mad e abou t comedy an d his theatre work : You tell me that peopl e cry at my plays. I've heard other s sa y this too. Bu t that i s not why I wrote them . I t is Alexeyev [Stanislavsky ] wh o made my characters into cry-babies. All 7 wanted was to say truthfully t o people: 'Have a loo k a t yourselve s an d see how bad and dreary you r live s are! ' - Th e important poin t i s that peopl e shoul d realis e tha t sinc e when the y do , they will most certainly create another, a better, life for themselves. I shall not live to se e it, but I know tha t i t will b e quite different , quit e unlik e ou r present life. And as long as this different lif e doe s not exist, I shall continue to say to people agai n and again: 'Please, understand tha t your life is bad and dreary!' - Wha t is there to cry about in this?9 These word s soun d lik e Vershini n o r Astrov . Fo r Chekhov , th e philoso phical cor e o f his 'comedy' i s that o f a doctor wh o knows ther e i s a cure yet everyon e i s sitting an d wailing abou t th e disease. T o this, however , a s ordinary mortal s we might well protest a fear o f death. But it is not the fear of deat h whic h concern s Chekho v (excep t i n the manner an d timing o f it): it i s the fear of life whic h h e exposes, an d presents a s 'comic ' i n tha t th e cure potentially lie s in our own hands . When Nemirovich-Danchenk o wrot e t o Chekho v tha t 'ther e ar e to o 231 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

VERA GOTTLIE B

many tearfu l character s i n th e pla y [The Cherry Orchard]', Chekho v replied: Where are they? There is only one such character - Varya , but that is because she i s a cry-bab y b y nature , an d he r tear s shoul d no t arous e an y sens e of gloom i n th e audience . I ofte n pu t dow n 'throug h tears ' i n m y stag e directions, bu t tha t show s onl y th e moo d o f th e character s an d not th e tears.10

If one looks more closely at the 'deaths' in the plays, there are a number of facets whic h clarif y Chekhov' s philosophy . A t th e en d o f The Seagull, a gifted youn g ma n commit s suicid e - ye t th e pla y i s calle d ' a comedy' . According t o Davi d Magarshack , Chekhov' s respons e t o thi s wa s tha t ' a failure who runs away from lif e is not the subject of a tragedy'.11 This may seem somewhat harsh , bu t it does relate to Chekhov's endless plea that we should improve our lives ourselves, and that there is much to be done. And to ensur e tha t w e ar e properl y - dramaticall y - prepared , Chekhov' s directions state that Konstantin tears up his manuscripts 'fo r tw o minutes': a lon g tim e i n stag e term s - an d i n rea l time , melodramatic . I n th e sam e play we have the dying Sorin: SORIN. You'r

e spoilt, that's why you talk like this. You've always had what you wanted , s o lif e doesn' t matte r t o you , yo u jus t don' t bother . But even you'll be afraid o f dying. DORN. Fea r of death's an animal thing. You must get over it. It only makes sense to fear deat h if you believe in immortality and are scared because you've sinned . But you aren' t a Christian fo r a start, an d the n - wha t sins hav e yo u committed ? You'v e worke d fo r th e Departmen t o f Justice12 for twenty-five years, that's all. SORIN. [laughs ] Twenty-eight.13

In Uncle Vanya there i s Professo r Serebriako v whos e suppose d ill-healt h has caused Dr Astrov to ride some distance in haste, leaving his wretchedly poor peasan t patients . Serebriako v i s clearl y a hypochondriac , bu t wha t emerges i s Astrov's tormente d memor y o f a patient's deat h h e was unabl e to avoi d - an d horro r a t the conditions o f the patients h e normally treats, the peasant s an d workers . Thi s i s contraste d o n th e on e han d wit h Serebriakov's self-centrednes s - an d Vanya' s depressio n o n th e other , a melancholy or depression arising from th e sense of a wasted life. Again, Dr Astrov i s quit e acerbi c wit h Vanya , no t merel y t o ge t bac k th e morphin e Vanya stol e and s o stop a suicide, but becaus e in contrast with most o f his patients, the landowning gentry live rather well . This is not to minimise or deflect th e rea l unhappines s o f th e character s but , a s Astro v put s i t t o Vanya: 232 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov's comedy Those who live a century o r two afte r u s and despis e us for leadin g lives so stupid and tasteless, perhaps they'll find a way to be happy, but as for u s . . . In our whole district there were only two decent, civilised people - yo u and I. But ten years or so of this contemptible, parochial existence have completely got u s down . Thi s filthy atmospher e ha s poisone d ou r bloo d an d we'v e become as second-rate as the rest of them. 14 The evidenc e o f th e plays , th e storie s an d Chekhov' s letter s suggest s again an d agai n tha t wha t h e calle d 'th e sa d comicalit y o f everyda y life ' was th e subject , whil e th e treatmen t wa s a stron g dos e o f comed y o r sens e of proportio n - an d wit h that , th e hop e o f a bette r future . This , anothe r leitmotif i n th e works , i s articulate d b y Vershini n an d Tuzenbac h i n Three Sisters, b y Trofimo v and , albei t differently , b y Lopakhi n i n The Cherry

Orchard. Death itsel f i s th e subtex t o f hi s shor t pla y Tatyana Repina, a wor k which remain s rathe r a myster y withi n th e Chekho v canon . Usin g th e conventional theme of the discarded mistress committing suicide in front of her love r an d hi s brid e (thi s tim e i n th e church) , Chekhov , i t seems , intended it as a private joke between himself an d Suvorin, who had written a mediocre four-ac t pla y calle d Tatyana Repina, both base d initiall y o n a true story. 15 Wha t seem s clear , however , i s tha t Chekho v wrot e i t a s a supposed 'fifth' ac t to Suvorin's play. Written in 1889, it exposes on the one hand Chekhov' s attitud e t o melodramati c gestures , an d o n th e othe r demonstrates i n a wa y tha t th e conventiona l drama s an d opera s d o not , that takin g poison i s extremely unpleasant an d painful. Whethe r a parody of Suvorin's play or (to name the best example of the formula) Dumas ' The Lady of the Camellias, or of a romance b y Turgenev o n th e sam e theme, Clara Milich (1882) , th e mai n poin t ma y b e summarise d thus : 'Chekho v wrote tha t neithe r Adashe v ( a characte r i n Suvorin' s play , missin g fro m Chekhov's, whos e sol e functio n seem s t o b e makin g lon g speeches ) no r anyone else should pronounce long monologues on the necessity of living in front o f someon e wh o i s dying o f poison , an d therefor e sufferin g fro m dreadful stomac h pains.' 16 Chekhov' s criticis m wa s o f excess , o f melo drama, an d th e manne r o f dyin g - particularl y give n th e socia l an d theatrical custo m o f th e tim e whic h demande d tha t th e sinfu l woman b e punished, whether throug h Dumas' tuberculosis or - i n Wilde's hands - b y leaving for America ! Thus the convention i s evident i n work a s diverse as the ending of Anna Karenina, o r the plays of Scribe, Sardou o r Pinero and, of course , Sha w an d Wilde , bot h o f whom , lik e Chekhov , als o use d th e convention t o inver t an d s o subvert a theme b y then s o well-worn tha t i t could, particularl y i n opera , becom e almos t comicall y unrea l i f 'willin g 2-33 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

VERA GOTTLIE B

belief i s suspended . It s relevanc e here , however , i s Chekhov' s us e o f comedy to make a serious point, and as a different perspectiv e on death. The other theme which relates to comedy in the plays (and the stories), is the constan t refrai n o f ' I coul d hav e . . .'- an d thi s to o become s bot h a philosophical statemen t and a comic technique. Perhaps one of the clearest examples i s i n Chekhov' s stor y 'I n Moscow ' (' V Moskve') . I n Tatyana Repina, written tw o year s earlier , Chekho v debunke d th e myt h o f peopl e 'doing a Tatyana Repina ' - here , h e present s fo r critica l appraisa l peopl e who se e themselve s a s Hamlet . Thi s i s no t Shakespeare' s Hamlet , bu t the popula r nineteenth-centur y Russia n ide a o f Hamle t whic h Turgene v analysed i n hi s lectur e o f 1858 , Hamlet and Don Quixote: Hamle t wa s viewed a s passive, resigned, incapabl e o f actio n an d typifyin g people , like Chekhov's Ivanov , wh o 'don' t solv e problems ' bu t 'cav e i n unde r th e weight'.17 Such characters are aimless, exhausted from doin g nothing - an d useless. As the Moscow Hamlet says of himself: I a m a Mosco w Hamlet . Yes . I g o t o houses , theatres , restaurants , an d editorial offices in Moscow, and everywhere I say the same thing: 'God, how boring it is, how ghastly boring!' And the sympathetic reply comes: 'Yes, indeed, it is terribly boring.' But then he says himself: And yet I could have learned anything . If I could have got the Asiatic out of myself, I coul d hav e studie d an d love d Europea n culture , trade , crafts , agriculture, literature, music, painting, architecture, hygiene. I could have had superb road s in Moscow, begu n trade with Chin a an d Persia, brough t dow n the death-rate, fought ignorance , corruption an d al l the abominations which hold us back from livin g . . . Yes, I could have! I could have! But I'm a rotten rag, useless rubbish. I am a Moscow Hamlet. . .18

Such characters , fo r Chekhov , wer e no t th e subjec t o f traged y bu t o f comedy. Agai n an d agai n i t i s th e character s themselve s wh o usuall y provide the only major obstacl e to self-fulfilment o r enjoyment, t o living as distinct fro m merel y existing , an d i n thi s wa y th e traged y i s usuall y presented as either avoidable - o r not 'tragic' in the first place. 19 In The Empty Space, Peter Broo k writes : 'Brech t an d Becket t ar e bot h contained i n Shakespear e unreconciled . W e identif y emotionally , subjec tively - an d yet at one and the same time we evaluate politically, objectivel y in relatio n t o society.' 20 Th e sam e i s tru e o f Chekho v - or , a s Trevo r Griffiths pu t it , Chekhov' s play s 'ar e bot h subjectivel y painfu l an d objec tively comic'. 21 This is partly the philosophical motivation fo r the comedy, while the nature of the comedy, o r th e comic effects , ar e designe d t o tak e 2-34

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov's comedy the spectato r fro m close-u p t o long-shot , o r vic e versa . I t i s thi s whic h creates th e contrapunta l natur e o f Chekhov' s structure , wher e on e conver sation wit h on e grou p o n stag e counterpoints another , wit h th e actio n overlapping bu t th e dialogu e precisel y harmonise d t o 'interrupt ' on e conversation fro m whic h a t time s onl y a laugh o r soun d ma y b e heard - a s at th e en d o f The Seagull, wher e ther e ar e tw o distinc t groups : tw o overlapping actions , bu t contrapunta l speec h o r soun d whe n Arkadin a an d the other s pla y lott o - whil e Dor n take s Trigori n t o on e sid e (o r - mor e exactly - downstage ) t o say : '[Droppin g hi s voic e i n a n undertone. ] "Ge t Irina ou t o f her e somehow . Th e fac t is , Constantin e ha s sho t himself. " Curtain.' 22 Examples o f thi s techniqu e ar e manifold , an d use d t o differen t effec t sometimes workin g t o deflate , a s i n Three Sisters whe n Olga , a t th e beginning o f Ac t One , say s to Irina: ' I felt s o happy an d excited , I felt I just had t o go back hom e t o Moscow' - afte r which , from th e group comprisin g Tuzenbakh, Chebutyki n an d Soliony , Chebutyki n says , wit h referenc e t o something quit e different : 'No t a chanc e i n hell' , an d Tuzenbak h replies , 'Absolute nonsens e o f course. ' Th e effec t i s virtuall y musica l - a leitmoti f counterpointed b y another theme , an d i n this way i t act s a s an unconsciou s commentary o n th e aspiration , expresse d virtuall y a t th e openin g o f th e play, to go to Moscow - an d lead a different life . This i s partl y wha t Pete r Broo k mean s whe n h e write s i n The Empty Space: Any page of The Three Sisters gives the impression of life unfolding as though a tape-recorder ha d been left running. If examined carefully i t will be seen to be buil t o f coincidence s a s grea t a s i n Feydea u - th e vas e o f flower s tha t overturns, the fire-engine tha t passe s at just the right moment; the word, the interruption, th e distan t music , th e soun d i n th e wings , th e entrance , th e farewell - touc h b y touch, the y creat e throug h th e languag e o f illusion s a n overall illusion of a slice of life. This series of impressions is equally a series of alienations: each rupture is a subtle provocation and a call to thought. 23 There is , however , a majo r differenc e no t onl y i n philosoph y bu t conse quently als o i n th e functio n o f th e comed y i n Feydea u o r Becket t - or , indeed, i n Michae l Frayn , som e play s b y Ala n Ayckbourn , o r othe r writer s of comed y wher e th e mechanisti c result s i n a muc h mor e physica l kin d o f farce an d wher e th e fatalisti c destroy s fre e will. 24 Th e poin t i s really mad e by Ionesco in his essay Experience of the Theatre: The traged y o f ma n i s pur e derisio n . . . I hav e neve r understoo d th e difference peopl e make betwee n th e comi c an d th e tragic . As the 'comic ' is an intuitive perceptio n o f th e absurd , i t seem s t o m e mor e hopeles s tha n th e 'tragic'. The 'comic ' offer s n o escape. 2-35 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

VERA GOTTLIE B

And Ionesco - autho r o f what h e named 'tragi c farces' - present s a world, for example , in The Chairs, wher e 'life i s nightmarish, painful an d unbearable, lik e a ba d dream' , an d i n whic h frenzie d actio n i s performe d b y mechanical beings. 25 In this philosophical an d theatrical worl d ther e is no such possibility a s free will , no questio n o f choice and , ultimately , n o real danger of human responsibility and culpability. This is not Chekhov's farce, or comed y - o r philosophy . S o th e mechanisti c chao s of , fo r example , Michael Frayn' s fil m scrip t o f Clockwise, o r hi s highl y successfu l farce , Noises Off (1982) , ha s mor e t o d o wit h th e dehumanisatio n an d heart lessness of the farce vehementl y attacke d b y Shaw, reacting to the flood of French farces on the English stage from th e 1870s onwards. As Shaw put it: 'To laugh without sympath y is a ruinous abuse of a noble function . . .' We rarely laugh at Chekhov's characters; usually, we laugh with them. Even in Jubilee (The Anniversary), th e chaos, physicality and farcical tablea u - ha s been created by humans, not mechanical beings. Again, it was the mechanistic, highl y physica l an d ofte n brilliantl y time d farce s originatin g wit h Scribe, Labich e an d Feydeau , whic h gre w int o a philosoph y increasingl y opposed t o Chekhov's . Thi s philosoph y an d thi s theatr e wer e aptl y analysed b y Kenneth Tynan in his celebrated attac k o n Ionesco in 1958 , in which h e describe d Ionesco' s landscap e a s 'tha t blea k ne w worl d fro m which the humanist heresie s of faith i n logic and belief i n man will foreve r be banished'. 26 Ionesco's view is completely opposite to Chekhov's. In Chekhov's works, whether plays or stories, there is no sense of an overriding 'fate' o r 'God' or 'power' superio r t o hi s character s an d wha t the y ma y b e capabl e of ; equally, ther e i s nothing mechanisti c o r automaton-lik e abou t th e characters: i t i s u p t o Nyukhi n i n On the Harmfulness of Tobacco whether h e rebels - o r continue s t o liv e miserably . Vany a an d Sony a ar e bot h disillusioned an d hurt a t the end of Uncle Vanya - bu t they settle down to make th e bes t o f wha t the y have , an d to work! Whil e th e en d o f The Cherry Orchard still pose s th e directo r th e mos t profoun d philosophical decision: d o w e se e a forgotte n Fir s locke d i n t o a n empt y boarded-u p house, an d lef t t o die ? Wha t i s the them e an d 'tone ' o f th e final musical motif at the end, punctuated by the sound of chopping? Perhaps tw o quotations , neithe r o f whic h ma y safel y b e identified wit h Chekhov's ow n views , illustrat e th e differenc e betwee n th e tw o kind s o f farce, the two kinds of comedy - an d the very different philosophica l bases for comedy . I n the stor y 'Thre e Years' , Chekhov' s characte r Yartse v says : 'Life, m y friends, i s very short - an d we must make the most of it.' An d in The Cherry Orchard, Chekhov a s always avoids the stereotype an d 'gives ' to th e 'ne w man' , Lopakhin , th e sensitiv e an d responsibl e line : 'th e Lor d 236 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Chekhov's comedy gave u s thes e hug e forests , thes e boundles s plains , thes e vas t horizons , an d we who liv e among the m ough t to be real giants'. 27 Chekhov illuminate s an d demonstrate s huma n absurdit y - bu t i n a n essentially realisti c contex t i n whic h huma n behaviou r struggle s wit h itsel f in a define d society , no t wit h a n undefined , hostile , 'mechanised ' force , lik e the suffocatin g growt h i n Ionesco' s Amedee - Or How To Get Kid of It. There is, however , a 'nightmarish ' realit y fo r Chekhov' s character s (se e chapter 8 , Leonid Heifet z o n Uncle Vanya), an d fe w would no w argu e wit h Ionesco's basi c premise : 'N o societ y ha s bee n abl e t o abolis h huma n sadness, no political syste m can delive r u s from th e pain o f living, from ou r fear o f death , ou r thirs t fo r th e absolute ; i t i s th e huma n conditio n tha t directs the socia l condition, no t vic e versa.' 28 The philosophica l argumen t rest s o n definition s o f 'th e huma n condi tion': determined , inevitabl e an d henc e impotent - o r subjec t i n som e area s to human control , howeve r fallible , an d t o the changeable huma n organisa tion o f the socia l condition, an d henc e potentially potent . The technique s wor k throug h th e relationshi p o f on e componen t o r organic elemen t wit h another ; throug h antithesis , parody , farce , th e us e o r reversal o f conventions , th e incongruou s o r th e grotesque , th e deflatio n o f character a t a moment o f 'drama ' o r self-dramatisation , throug h th e under cutting o r defusing o f atmosphere an d the acceleration - o r more frequentl y - th e deceleration o f rhyth m an d pace . An d mor e ofte n tha n not , a Chekhov character turn s ou t to b e not Hamlet , bu t Tartuffe . NOTES Translations ar e th e author' s an d quotation s fro m th e letter s ar e fro m Anton Chekhov, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem v 30 tomakh, Moscow, 1974-83, (Anton Chekhov, Collected Works and Letters in 30 volumes, Moscow , 1974-83), unless otherwise indicated. 1 Lette r to Nikolai Leykin, 20 May 1884. 2 Quote d in A. S. Dolinin, 'Parodiya li, 'Tatyana Repina' Chekhova?', an article in A. P. Chekhov, Zateryannye proizvedeniya, Leningrad , 1925 , p. 60. (See Vera Gottlieb, Chekhov and the Vaudeville, Cambridge, 1982, p. 212 , notes 30-1). 3 Fro m Fragments - (Splinters) - of Moscow Life, 1883-5 ; Oskolki, Anton Chekhov, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem v }oi tomakh, Moscow , 1974-1983. 4 Lette r to A. S. Suvorin, 27 March 1894. 5 Trans . Michae l Meyer , Henrik Ibsen, vol . n, A Farewell to Poetry, London, 1971, p . 210

.

6 Laughter by Henri Bergson and An Essay on Comedy by George Meredith ar e to be found in one volume: Comedy, intro. Wylie Sypher, New York, 1956. 7 Lette r to Nemirovich-Danchenko, 2 November 1903. 8 Works/Letters, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem A. P. Chekhova, v 20 / 237 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

VERA GOTTLIE B

tomakh, ed . S . D . Balukhat y an d others , Moscow , 1944-51 , vol . xix , pp. 257-8 . Quoted in David Magarshack, Chekhov the Dramatist, New York, i960, p. 14. 9 Reporte d by the writer Alexander Tikhonov in 1902, in Chekhov v neizdannykh dnevnikakh sovremennikov, i n Literaturnoe nasledstvo 68 , Moscow , i960 , PP- 479-8o. 10 Lette r to Nemirovich-Danchenko, 2 3 October 1903. 11 Quotatio n from Chekhov' s notebooks in Magarshack, Chekhov the Dramatist, pp. 193-4 . 12 Fro m what historians of the period have written about Tsarist autocracy, police surveillance, the legal and penal systems, it may be that Sori n is not completely without culpability in his job at the Department of Justice, a point perhaps more immediate fo r Chekhov' s contemporar y audiences . Se e Bibliograph y fo r th e historical context of the plays. 13 The Seagull, trans, an d ed . Ronal d Hingley , The Oxford Chekhov, vol . n, Oxford, 1967 , Act Four, p. 271. 14 Uncle Vanya, trans, an d ed . Ronal d Hingley , The Oxford Chekhov, vol. in, Oxford, 1964 , Act Four, p. 60. 15 Se e Gottlieb, Chekhov and the Vaudeville, pp. 133-46 . 16 Ibid. , p. 136. 17 Lette r to A. S. Suvorin, 30 December 1888. 18 Th e translation o f A Moscow Hamlet (V Moskve) (1891) is my own, and fro m Anton Chekhov, Collected Works/Letters, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem v

^oi tomakh, vol . 11 , pp. 500-7 . 19 Th e titl e characte r i n Platonov (otherwis e know n a s Fatherlessness - se e The Oxford Chekhov, Hingley , vo l 11 , Appendi x 1 , pp . 282-3 ) i s th e earlies t example o f the 'type ' in Chekhov's plays . 20 Pete r Brook, The Empty Space, Harmondsworth , 1968 , p. 98 . 21 The Cherry Orchard - A New English Version, Trevo r Griffiths , London , 1978 , p. vi . and se e chapter 1 0 in this volume. 22 The Seagull, ed. , an d trans. Hingley, p. 281. 23 Pete r Brook, The Empty Space, p . 89 . 24 Discusse d a t greate r lengt h i n Ver a Gottlieb , Why this Farce? in New Theatre Quarterly 7 , 27, August 1991 , pp. 217-28 . 25 Eugen e Ionesco , Notes and Counter-Notes, trans . Donal d Watson , London , 1964, p. 113 . 26 Ibid. , p. 92 . 27 The Cherry Orchard, trans , an d ed . Ronal d Hingley , The Oxford Chekhov, Vol. in , Oxford, 1964 , p. 170 . 28 Ionesco , Notes and Counter-Notes, p . 95 .

238 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

APPENDIX i

Chekhov's works: primary sources from the Russian Variations of English Titles from the Russian

The Oxford Chekhov, trans. Ronald Hingley:

vol. i (1968) Short Plays; vol. 11 (1967) Platonov, Ivanov, The Seagull; vol. in (1964 ) Uncle Vanya, Three Sisters, The Cherry Orchard, The WoodDemon; vol. iv (1980) Stories: 'The Steppe', 'An Awkward Business', 'The Beauties', 'The Party', 'A Nervous Breakdown', 'The Cobbler and the Devil', 'The Bet', 'Lights'; vol. v (1970 ) Stories 1889-1891: 'Th e Princess' , ' A Drear y Story' , 'Thieves' , 'Gusev', 'Peasant Women', 'The Duel'; vol. vi (1971) Stories 1892-1893: 'M y Wife', 'The Butterfly', 'Afte r th e Theatre', 'In Exile', 'Neighbours', 'Ward Number Six' , 'Terror', 'A n Anonymous Story' , 'Fragments', 'Th e Stor y o f a Commercia l Venture' , 'Fro m a Retired Teacher' s Notebook', 'A Fishy Affair' ; vol. VI I (1978 ) Stories 1893-1895: 'Th e Tw o Volodyas', 'Th e Blac k Monk' , ' A Woman's Kingdom', 'Rothschild's Fiddle', 'The Student', 'The Russian Master', 'At a Country House', 'The Head Gardener's Story', 'Three Years'; vol. VII I (1965 ) Stories 1895-1897: 'Hi s Wife', 'Patch' , 'Th e Orde r o f S t Anne', 'Murder', 'Ariadne' , 'Th e Artist' s Story' , 'M y Life' , 'Peasants' , 'Th e Savage' , 'Home', 'In the Cart'; vol. i x (1975 ) Stories 1898-1904: ' A Har d Case' , 'Gooseberries' , 'Concernin g Love', 'Docto r Startsev' , ' A Cas e History' , 'Angel' , 'Ne w Villa' , 'O n Officia l Business', 'A Lady with a Dog', 'A t Christmas', 'In the Hollow', 'Th e Bishop', 'A Marriageable Girl' , 'Al l Friends Together', 'Th e Cripple' , 'Poor Compensa tion', 'A Letter'.

Chekhov Stories, trans. Ronald Wilks:

'The Kiss and Other Stories' (1982) (an d 'Peasants' , 'Th e Bishop', 'The Russian Master', 'Ma n in a Case', 'Gooseberries', 'Concerning Love', 'A Case History', 'In the Gully', 'Anna Round the Neck'); 'The Duel and Other Stories' (1984 ) (an d 'M y Wife' , 'Murder' , 'Th e Blac k Monk', 'Terror', 'The Two Volodyas');

239 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

APPENDIX I : CHEKHO V S WORK S

'The Party and Other Stories' (1985) (an d ' A Woman's Kingdom', 'M y Life' , ' A Provincial Story', 'An Unpleasant Business', 'A Nervous Breakdown'); 'The Fiancee and Other Stories' (1986) (an d 'On Officia l Business' , 'Rothschild's Fiddle', 'Peasant Women', 'Three Years', 'With Friends', 'The Bet', 'New Villa', 'At A Country House', 'Beauties', 'His Wife', 'The Student'). Some of the early storie s may b e found in : Constance Garnett , trans . The Tales of Anton Tchekhov (i n 1 3 vols.), London, 1916-22

Nora Gottlieb, Early Stories, London, i960, and New York, 1961 Patrick Miles and Harvey Pitcher, Anton Chekhov, Early Stories, London, 1994 Constance Garnett, trans, (revised D. Rayfield), The Chekhov Omnibus, London, 1994. For furthe r title s o f translation s o f primar y source s i n English , se e selec t bibliography. This i s no t intende d a s a definitiv e lis t o f Chekhov' s storie s bu t include s some o f th e majo r one s mentione d i n thi s Companion. Give n th e disparat e English an d America n translation s o f th e titles , an d bearin g i n min d th e requirements o f the non-Russian reader , the editors decide d a chronologica l order woul d provid e th e mos t coheren t metho d o f locatin g a particula r story. The Russia n reade r i s served b y the origina l Russia n titl e i n bracket s with the date o f a particular story . * denote s availabl e i n Hingley , The Oxford Chekhov, an d Hingley' s title / translation. W. yea r o f publicatio n denote s availabl e i n Wilks , Penguin , e.g . Stor y W . 1986. F denotes eithe r filme d o r part o f a film script (se e chapter 1 3 in this volum e and Appendix 3) . 'Belated Flowers/Th e Flower s ar e Late ' F/'Tard y Flowers/Belate d Blossom' * ('Tsvety zapozdalyye', 1882) and F 'The Butterfly*/ The Grasshopper' ('Poprygunya' , 1882 ) and F 'A Live Chattel/A Living Chattel'* ('Zhivoy tovar', 1882 ) 'The Mistress' ('Barynya', 1882 ) '29 June' ('Dvadstat devyatoy e iyunya', 1882) 'An Unwanted Victory/Unnecessary Victory'* ('Nenuzhnaya pobeda' , 1882) 'The Daughter of Albion' ('Doch Albiona', 1883 ) and F 'The Deat h o f a Clerk/Deat h o f a Pett y Official/Th e Deat h o f a Governmen t Clerk'* ('Smer t chinovnika', 1883 ) and F 'Fat and Thin' ('Tolsty i tonky', 1883) 'In Autumn'* ('Osenyu', 1883) . See the play 'On the High Road' (1885) 'On Christmas Night' ('Vrozhdestvenskyu noch' , 1883) 240 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

APPENDIX I : CHEKHO V S WORK S

'ATragic Actor' ('Tragik', 1883) 'A Chameleon' ('Khameleon', 1884 ) and F 'Romance with Double-Bass' ('Roman s kontrabasom', 1886 ) and F 'The Shooting Party'* ('Dram a na okhote', 1884-85) ( F = 'Summer Storm') 'The Burbot' ('Nalim' , 1885 ) 'A Christmas Dream' ('Son svyatochnyy', 1885) 'A/The Dead Body' ('Myortvoye telo', 1885) 'Grief/Sorrow'* ('Gore' , 1885 ) 'A Horse's Name/A Horsey Name'* ('Loshadinaya familiya' , 1885 ) 'The Huntsman' ('Yeger', 1885) 'The Mirror' ('Zerkalo' , 1885 ) 'On th e Road/O n th e Hig h Road' * ('N a bolsho y doroge' , 1885 ) an d se e under plays 'The Wallet' ('Bumazhnik', 1885 ) 'Warrant Office r Prishibeyev/NC O Prishibeyev/Sergean t Prishibeyev' * ('Unte r Prishibeyev', 1885) 'A Cure for Hangovers/A Means of Sobering Up' (Sredstvo ot zapoiya', 1885) 'Agafiya' ('Agafya' , 1886 ) 'Calchas'* ('Kalchas', 1886) , and see Swan Song (Lebedinaya pesnya, 1887-8) 'The Chorus Girl' ('Khoristka', ] 'Easter Eve' ('Svyato y nochyu', 'A Man' s Friend/ A Gentlema n Friend/ A Ma n Friend ' ('Znakom y muzhchina' , 1886) 'Misery*/Unhappiness/Heartache' ('Toska' , 1886 ) 'Motley Tales/Stories' ('Pyostryye rasskazy', 1886) 'The Nigh t Befor e th e Trial ' ('Noc h pere d sudom' , 1886) . See play o f th e sam e name, 1890s 'The Nightmare/A Nightmare'* ('Koshmar', 1886 ) 'On the Way' ('Na puti', 1886) 'Practical Jokes' ('Shyutochki' , 'The Schoolmaster' ('Uchitel' , i f 'The Slough/The Quagmire' ('Tina', : 'The Witch' ('Vedma', 1886 ) 'The Wolf ('Volk' , 1886) 'In the Twilight/In the Dusk/At Dusk'* ('V sumerkakh', 1886-7 ) 'The Enemies/Enemies'* ('Vragi', 1887 ) 'Fortune' ('Schastye', 1887 ) 'The Kiss' ('Potseluy', 1887 ) and W 198 2 'One Among Many' ('Odin iz mnogikh', 1887) . See the play A Tragic Role 'Tumbleweed/Thistledown/Uprooted'* ('Perekati-pole' , 1887 ) 'Rusty/Kashtanka' ('Kashtanka' , 1887 ) and F 'Illegal*/Lawlessness' ('Nazakonnyi*/Bezzakonie', 1887 ) and F 'Typhus'* ('TiP, 1887) 'An Unpleasant Business/A Bad Business' ('Nedobroye delo' , 1887) an d W. 1985 241 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

APPENDIX I : CHEKHO V S WORK S

'Verochka' ('Verochka', 1887 ) 'Volodia/Volodya' ('Volodya' , 1887 ) 'Panpipes' ('Svirel', 1887-88 ) 'An Awkward Business/An Unpleasantness'* ('Nepriyatnost' , 1888 ) 'Beauties/The'* ('Krasavitsy', 1888 ) and W. 198 6 'The Bet'* ('Pari', 1888 ) and W. 198 6 'The Cobbler and the Devil' ('Sapozhnik i nechistaya sila', 1888) 'Lights'* ('Ogni', 1888 ) 'A Nervous Breakdown*/The Seizure' ('Pripadok', 1888 ) and W. 198 5 'The Party'* ('Imeniny', 1888) and W. 1985 'The Steppe'* ('Step', 1888) 'Children' ('Detvora', 188 9 - a collection) 'A Drear y Story*/Th e Ordinar y Story/ A Borin g Story ' ('Skuchnay a istoriya' , 1889) 'The Princess'* ('Knyaginya', 1889 ) 'Gusev'* ('Gusev', 1890 ) 'Gloomy People'* ('Khmuryye lyudi', 1890) 'Thieves'* ('Vory', 1890 ) 'The Duel'* ('Duel', 1891 ) and W. 198 4 'Peasant Women'* ('Baby', 1891 ) and W. 198 6 'After th e Theatre'* ('Posle teatra', 1892 ) 'In Exile'* ('V ssylke', 1892) 'My Wife'* ('Zhena', 1892 ) 'Neighbours'* ('Sosedi', 1892) 'Terror/The Terror'* ('Strakh', 1892 ) andW. 1984 'Ward No 6'* ('Palata No.6', 1892) 'An Anonymous Story'* ('Rasskaz neizvestnogo cheloveka', 1893) 'Two Volodyas*/Bi g Volody a an d Littl e Volodya ' ('Volody a bolsho y i Volodya malenky', 1893 ) and W 198 4 'At a Country House'* ('Vusadbe', 1894 ) and W 198 6 'The Black Monk'* ('Chorn y monakh', 1894 ) andW. 1984 'The Head Gardener's Story'* ('Rasskaz starshego sadovnika', 1894) 'Rothschild's Fiddle/Rothschild' s Violin' * ('Skripk a Rotshilda' , 1894 ) an d W 1986 'The Russian Master/The Teacher of Literature'* ('Uchitel slovesnosti', 1894) and W 198 2 'The Student'* ('Student', 1894 ) and W 198 6 'AWoman's Kingdom'* ('Babye tsarstvo', 1894) and W. 198 5 'Anna Roun d th e Neck/Ann a o n m y Neck/Th e Orde r o f S t Anne/Rank s an d People' ('Anna na sheye', 1895), W. 1982 and F 'Ariadne'* ('Ariadna', 1895 ) 'His Wife'* ('Supruga' 1895 ) andW 198 6 'The Murder/Murder'* ('Ubiystvo' , 1895 ) andW 198 4 'Patch'* ('Beloloby', 1895 ) 242 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

APPENDIX I : CHEKHO V S WORK S

'Three Years' ('Tri goda', 1895 ) and W. 1986 'The Artist's Story*/The House with a Mezzanine' ('Dom s mezoninom', 1896) 'My Life: A Provincial Story'* ('Moya zhizn', 1896) and W. 1985 'Home/In the Home-stead'* ('Vrodno m uglu' , 1897) 'Peasants* /The Peasants' ('Muzhiki', 1897 ) and W. 1982 'In the Cart'* ('Na podvode', 1897) 'All Friend s Together*/ A Visit t o Friends/Wit h Friends ' (' U Znakomykh' , 1898 ) andW. 1986 'A Cas e History*/A n Inciden t i n Practice ' ('Slucha y i z praktiki', 1898 ) an d W. 1982

'Concerning Love' ('O lyubvi', 1898), andW. 1982 'Gooseberries'* ('Kryzhovnik', 1898) , and W. 1982 'A Hard Case*/ A Man in a Case' ('Chelovek v futlyare', 1898 ) an d W. 1982 and F 'Ionytch/In the Town of S. (F) /Doctor Startsev'* ('Ionych', 1898 ) and F 'Lady with a Little Dog/A Lady with a Dog'* ('Dama s sobachkoy', 1899 ) and F 'Matter of Service/On Official Business' * ('Po delam sluzhby', 1899) and W. 1986 'The New Villa/New Villa'* ('Novaya dacha' , 1899 ) and W. 1986 'The Cripple' ('Kaleka', 1900 ) 'In the Ravine /In the Hollow*/In the Gully' ('Vovrage', 1900 ) and W. 1982 'The Bishop'* ('Arkhierey', 1902 ) and W. 1982 'The/A Marriageable Girl*/The Bride/The Fiancee' (Nevesta, 1903) and W. 1986 'Poor Compensation'* ('Rasstroystv o kompensatsii', 1902-3 ) fragmen t

Plays

Four-act: The Oxford Chekhov, trans. Hingley, vols. 11 and in

Fatherless (Bezottsovshchina, iSyy-SiyPlatonov (Platonov, 1880-1?) . H.Vol. II The Wood-Demon (Leshy, 1889) . H.Vol. Ill Ivanov (Ivanov, 1887-9) . H.Vol. II The Seagull*/Seagull (Chayka, 1896) . H.Vol. II Uncle Vanya (Dyadya Vanya, 1890-6). H.Vol. Ill Three Sisters (Tri sestry, 1900-1) . H.Vol. Ill The Cherry Orchard (Vishnyovy sad, 1903-4) . H.Vol. Ill

One-Act: Hingley, Vol. I

The Beaf'IThe Boor/The Brute (Medved, 1888 ) The Proposal (Predlozheniye, 1888-9 ) On the High Road (Na bolshoy doroge, 1885). Based on the stor y 'I n Autumn ' ('Osenyu'), 1883 Swan Song (Calchas) (Lebedinaya pesnya - Kalkhas, 1887-8) Base d o n stor y 'Kalchas', 1886 Tatyana Repin (Tatyana Repina, 1889) 243 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

APPENDIX I : CHEKHO V S WORK S

A Tragic Role"'/The Reluctant Tragedian/A Tragedian In Spite of Himself subtitled A Holiday Episode (Tragik po nevole - Iz dachnoy zhizni, 1889-90) . Based on story 'One among Many', ('Odin iz mnogikh', 1887) The Wedding (Svadba, 1889-90) . Based on stories 'The Wedding Season', 1881; 'Marrying for Money', and 'A Wedding with a General', both 1884 The Anniversary*/Jubilee (Yubiley, 1891). Based o n stor y ' A Defenceles s Crea ture' ('Bezzashchitnoye sushchestvo' , 1887) Smoking is Bad for You 1''/On the Harmfulness of Tobacco/The Evils of Tobacco (O vrede tabaka, 1903) The Night Before the Trial (Noch pered sudom, 1890s) . Based on story of same name, 1886. Other versions/translation s o f the plays may b e found i n Michael Fray n ed . Chekhov Plays: The Seagull, Uncle Vanya, Three Sisters, The Cherry Orchard, The Evils of Tobacco, Swan Song, The Bear, The Proposal, London, 1988. See also The Wood-Demon in translation by S. S. Koteliansky, London, 1926, and David Magarshack , ed . an d trans . The Seagull, London , 1952 ; Platonov, New York, 1964 ; Four Plays: The Seagull, Uncle Vanya, Three Sisters, The Cherry Orchard, New York, 1969. French version s b y Patric e Pavi s wit h notes/introduction , he Livre de Poche: La Mouette (The Seagull), Paris, 1985. Oncle Vania (Uncle Vanya), Paris, 1986. La Cerisaie (The Cherry Orchard), Paris, 1988. Les Trois soeurs (Three Sisters), Paris, 1991. M(o)uettes, The Seagull (contemporary version of The Seagull), Brussels, 1999. For other translations/versions/adaptations se e selected bibliography . Selected non-fiction The Island of Sakhalin* /Sakhalin (Ostrov Sakhalin, 1891-4). Chekhov, A . P. , 'Thing s Mos t Frequentl y Encountere d i n Novels , Storie s an d Other Suc h Things ' ('Cht o chashch e vseg o vstrechayetsy a . . .', 1880 , i n Collected Works/Letters, 1944-51, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem A. P. Chekhova v zoi tomakh, ed . S . D. Balukhaty an d others , Moscow 1944-51 , vol. 1, 1880-2, pp. 17-18 .

244 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

APPENDIX 2

Selected stage productions

The following i s a selected lis t of som e of the major internationa l produc tions of Chekhov, including British and Russian premieres. A more detailed production histor y is given by R. Hingley in The Oxford Chekhov, vols. i, II, an d in , L . Senelick i n The Chekhov Theatre, N. I. Gitovic h i n Letopis zhizni i tvorchestva, A. P. Chekhova, and in the Glossary afte r chapte r 1 5 in thi s volume . Director s an d designer s ar e give n fo r mos t productions , though th e absenc e o f a director sometime s indicate s ho w the significanc e of thei r contributio n wa s stil l bein g define d a t th e beginnin g o f th e twentieth century . Central role s and th e actors who played them ar e given in bracket s fo r mos t performances , an d venue s ar e occasionall y supple mented b y the name o f the theatre compan y performing , i f i t differ s fro m the residen t company . Gues t production s whic h visite d Britai n ar e als o indicated. Transliteration follows tha t of each particular production. Many of thes e production s ar e referre d t o i n th e followin g chapter s i n thi s volume: 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18. Notation: Dir./s . denote s director/s ; des . denote s designer ; trans , denote s translator; adapt, denotes adaptation/version; rep. denotes repertoire; ed./s. denotes editor/s. NT/RNT is short for the National Theatre/Royal National Theatre (th e name changed wit h th e Royal Charte r grante d i n 1988 ) an d RSC is short fo r th e Royal Shakespear e Company . MAT denotes Mosco w Art Theatre/MXA T i n Russia n (MKhA T Moskovski i Khudozhestvenny i Akademicheskii Teatr/Moscow Art Academic Theatre). * denotes a British premiere + denotes Russian premiere. 1886 + O vrede tabaka (On the Harmfulness of Tobacco), Korsh Theatre, Moscow, writte n fo r th e comi c acto r L . I.Gradov-Sokolo v (1845-90) . This wa s a privat e theatr e owne d b y F. A. Kors h (1852-1923) , whic h opened afte r th e abolitio n o f th e monopol y o f th e Imperial Theatres . It

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

APPENDIX 2 : SELEC T STAG E PRODUCTION S

was ru n a s a commercia l rathe r tha n a n artisti c enterprise . Chekho v wrote six distinct versions of this play over the period 1886-1903. 1887 + Ivanov (first version), first performanc e a t Saratov, between 1 0 and 19 November . Firs t majo r productio n a t Kors h Theatre , Moscow , 1 9 November, dir. M. V. Agramov, V. N. Davy do v (Ivanov). 1888 + Lebedinaya pesnya (Swan Song), Kors h Theatre , Moscow , 1 9 February, for the comic actor V. N. Davydov (1849-1925). 1888 + Predlozheniye (The Proposal), Krasnoye Selo Theatre, St Petersburg, 9 August , writte n fo r an d dir . I . L . Leontyev , M . Ilinskay a (Natasha) , P. Svobodin (Lomov), K. Varlamov (1848-1915) (Chubukov). 1888 + Medved (The Bear), Korsh Theatre, Moscow, 2 8 October, dir . and acted b y N . N . Solovtso v (1856-1902 ) (Smirnov) , Nataly a Rybchins kaya (Popova). 1889 Ivanov, Imperial Alexandrinsk y Theatre , S t Petersburg, 3 1 January, V. N. Davydov (Ivanov), M. G. Savina (1854-1915) (Sasha) . 1889 Tragik po nevole (A Tragic Role/A Tragedian in Spite of Himself), 4 May, amateu r productio n writte n fo r K . Varlamov ; thi s rol e wa s als o played by M. I. Bibikov at the Petersburg German Club, 1 October. 1889 Leshy (The Wood-Demon), Abramov Theatre , Moscow, 2 7 December, another private theatre, as the play had been rejected b y the Imperial Alexandrinsky Theatre, St Petersburg. 1891 Predlozheniye (The Proposal), Imperia l Mal y (Little ) Theatre , Moscow, 20 February. 1896 + Chaika (The Seagull), Imperial Alexandrinsk y Theatre , S t Petersburg, 1 7 October, dir . E . P . Karpo v (1857-1926) , des . A . Yanov , A. Diuzhikova (Arkadina) , Ver a Komissarzhevskay a (Nina) , N . F. Sazonov (Trigorin), K. Varlamov (Shamrayev) and Davydov (Sorin). This production was a failure bu t was followed b y successful performance s i n Kiev, Taganrog, Astrakhan and other provincial cities. 1898 Chaika (The Seagull), MAT , Moscow , 1 7 December , dir . K . S . Stanislavsky, des . V A . Simov , O . L . Knipper (Arkadina) , V E . Meyerhold (Treplev), K. S. Stanislavsky (Trigorin). 1898 + Dyadya Vanya (Uncle Vanya), Nizhn y Novgoro d Dramati c Theatre, October-November, an d other Russian theatres, e.g. in Odessa, Kiev, Tiflis, Saratov.

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

APPENDIX 2 : SELEC T STAG E PRODUCTION S

1899 Dyadya Vanya (Uncle Vanya) MAT, Moscow, 2 6 October, dir . K. S. Stanislavsky, des . V. A. Simov, O. L. Knipper (Yelien a Andreyeevna) , K. S. Stanislavsky (Astrov), A. L. Vishnevsky (Vanya). 1900 Yubiley (Jubilee/The Anniversary), amateu r productio n fo r a 'Chekhov Evening' at the Moscow Hunt Club. 1901 + Tri sestry (Three Sisters), MAT, Moscow , 3 1 January , dir . K . S . Stanislavsky, V. V. Luzhsky, des. V. A. Simov, O. L. Knipper (Masha) , K. S. Stanislavsky (Vershinin). 1902 Tri sestry (Three Sisters), Ivanov, Chaika (The Seagull), Dyadya Vanya (Uncle Vanya), Kherson , September-Octobe r season , dir . V. Meyerhold. 1902 Chaika (The Seagull), Imperia l Alexandrinsk y Theatre , Moscow , 16 November, dir . Mikhail Yegorovic h Darsky , Khodoto v (Konstantin) , M. G. Savina (Arkadina), L. V. Selivanova (Nina) , I. Shuvalov (Trigorin), K. Varlamov (Sorin). 1903 + Yubiley (Jubilee/The Anniversary), Imperial Alexandrinsky Theatre, St Petersburg, November , on e night onl y as a curtain-raiser fo r a benefi t performance, E. I. Levkeyeva (Merchutkina), K. Varlamov (Khirin). 1904 Yubiley (Jubilee/The Anniversary), Maly (Little ) Theatre , Moscow , December. Benefi t fo r Olg a Ossipovn a Sadovskay a fo r on e nigh t only , playing with a repertory Gogol production. 1904 + Vishnyovy sad (The Cherry Orchard), MAT, Moscow, 1 7 January, dir. K . S . Stanislavsky, des . V A . Simov , O . L . Knipper (Ranyevskaya) , K. S. Stanislavsky (Gayev). 1904 Vishnyovy sad (The Cherry Orchard), Kherson , 4 February , dir . V Meyerhold , V Meyerhold (Trofimov) . 1904 Ivanov, MAT , Moscow , 1 9 October , dir . V I . Nemirovich Danchenko, des . V A . Simov , V I . Kachalo v (Ivanov) , O . L . Knippe r (Anna Petrovna), K. S. Stanislavsky (Shabyelsky). 1904 Svadba (The Wedding), Komissarzhevskaya Theatre , S t Petersburg , dir. Nikolai Arbatov (given name Arkhipov), des. Vrachev. 1904 Tri sestry (Three Sisters), Artistic Society's Theatre, Tiflis, Fellowship of New Drama, 26 September, dir V Meyerhold (revival of 1902 production). 1904/5 Chaika (The Seagull), reviva l a t Komissarzhevskay a Theatre , St Petersburg, dir. Molchanov, Vera Komissarzhevskaya (Nina) . 247 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

APPENDIX 2 : SELEC T STAG E PRODUCTION S

1905 Vishnyovy sad (The Cherry Orchard), Imperia l Alexandrinsk y Theatre, Moscow, dir. Yuri Ozarovsky. 1909 "The Seagull, Royalty Theatre , Glasgow , 2 November , dir . Georg e Calderon. 1910 Tri sestry (Three Sisters), Imperia l Alexandrinsk y Theatre , Moscow, dir. Yuri Ozarovsky. 1911 *The Bear, Kingswa y Theatre , London , 1 3 May , dir . Lydi a Yavors kaya, trans. Arthur A. Sykes. 1911 *The Cherry Orchard, Aldwych Theatre , London , 2 9 May , dir . Kenelm Foss, trans. Constance Garnett. 1912 The Seagull, Little Theatre , London , 3 1 March , trans , an d dir . George Calderon, des. Maurice Elvey. 1914 "'Uncle Vanya, Aldwych Theatre , London , 1 1 May, dir . Gu y Rath bone, trans. R. S. Townsend. 1916 *The Proposal, Birmingha m Repertor y Theatre , Birmingham , 1 8 March, dir. John Drinkwater. 1916 The Seagull, Bandbox Theatre , Ne w York , 2 2 May , Washingto n Square Players, trans. Marian Fell, des. Lee Simonson. 1917 *The Wedding, trans. Julius West, and "Swan Song, trans. Marian Fell, Grafton Galleries , London, 14 May, dir. Nigel Playfair, des. Michel Sevier. 1920 A Triple Bill: The Bear, "On the High Road an d The Wedding, dir. Edith Craig , S t Martin' s Theatre , London , 2 5 January , Doroth y Mas singham (Popova) , Josep h A . Dod d (Smirnov) . (Edit h Crai g wa s th e daughter o f Ellen Terr y an d Edwar d William Godwin , siste r o f Edwar d Gordon Crai g wh o ha d designe d Hamlet fo r th e MA T - an d a leading feminist theatre manager and director.) 1920 "Three Sisters, Roya l Court Theatre, London, 8 March, dir . and des. Mme Ver a Donne t (dir . o f Ar t Theatre) , trans . Harol d Bowen , Feli x Aylmer (Solyony), Harcourt Williams (Vershinin). 1920 "The Cherry Orchard, St Martin' s Theatre , London , 1 2 July , dir . Mme Ver a Donnet , Edit h Evan s (Charlotta) , Hesket h Pearso n (Tro fimov), Feli x Aylmer (Semyonov-Pishchik). 1921 + Chekhovsky vecher (Chekhov TLvening: The Wedding, The Anniversary; Thieves), Third Studi o o f th e MAT , Moscow , 1 5 November , dir . Yevgeny Vakhtangov, des. Isaac Rabinovich.

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

APPENDIX 2 : SELEC T STAG E PRODUCTION S

1921 Uncle Vanya, Cour t Theatre , London , 2 7 November , dir . Fyodo r Komissarzhevsky/Theodore Komisarjevsky , 'Komis' , (brothe r o f Ver a Komissarzhevskya, h e emigrate d fro m Russi a i n 191 9 an d wa s briefl y married t o Peggy Ashcroft). Cathlee n Nesbit t (Helena) , Irene Rathbon e (Sonya), Leo n Quartermain e (Vanya) . H e anglicise d hi s name , a s above. 1925 The Cherry Orchard, Lyri c Theatre , Hammersmith , London , 2 5 May, dir. J. B. Fagan, des . Edgar Brickell, trans. George Calderon, John Gielgud (Trofimov) . 1925 The Seagull, Little Theatre, London, 1 9 October, dir. and des. Fyodor Komisarjevsky (Theodore) , John Gielgud (Treplev). 1925 *lvanov, Incorporate d Stag e Society , Duk e o f York' s Theatre , London, 6 December, dir . an d des . Theodore Komisarjevsk y (a s he was now known , thoug h man y calle d hi m 'Komis') , trans . Maria n Fell , Robert Farquharson (Ivanov). 1926 Uncle Vanya, Barnes Theatre , London , 1 6 January , dir . Theodor e Komisarjevsky, trans . Constance Garnett, John Gielgud (Tusenbach). 1926 Three Sisters, 14t h Street Theatre, New York, 26 October, dir. Eva Le Gallienne, des. G. E. Calthrop, Eva Le Gallienne (Masha). US premiere. 1927 Uncle Vanya, Birmingham Repertory Theatre , Birmingham, 2 April, dir. W. G. Fay, des. Hugh Owen, Laurence Olivier (Vanya). 1927 Dyadya Vanya (Uncle Vanya), MAT , Moscow, dir. V I . NemirovichDanchenko. 1928 The Cherry Orchard, Bijou Theatre , Ne w York , 5 March , Jame s Fagin (Gaev), Glen-Byam Shaw (Trofimov). 1928 The Cherry Orchard, Garrick Theatre , London , Pragu e Grou p o f MKAT, 11 April, dir. M. N. Germanova. Guest production. 1928 Uncle Vanya, Garric k Theatre , London , Pragu e Grou p o f MKA T (Moscow Art Theatre), 3 0 April, dir. M. N. Germanova. Gues t production. 1928 The Cherry Orchard, Barne s Theatre , London , 2 8 September , Martita Hunt (Carlotta), Charles Laughton (Epihodov). 1928 The Cherry Orchard, Civi c Repertor y Theatre , Ne w York , 1 4 October, dir . Ev a L e Gallienne , des . Aline Bernstein , Ev a L e Gallienn e (Varya), Alia Nazimova (Ranevskaya) . 2-49 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

APPENDIX 2 : SELEC T STAG E PRODUCTION S

1928 worl d premier e o f Chekhov' s untitle d pla y (generall y know n a s Platonov o r Fatherlessness) i n a versio n b y Ren e Fiilop-Mille r entitle d Der unnutzige Mensch Platonoff (That Useless Person Platonov), Preussisches Theater, Gera, south-east Germany, dir. Helmut Ebbs. 1929 The Seagull, Arts Theatre , London , 1 6 January , dir . A . E . Filmer , trans. Constance Garnett, des . James Whale, John Gielgu d (Konstantin) , Miriam Lewes (Arkadina), Valerie Taylor (Nina). 1929 Les trois soeurs (Three Sisters), Theatr e de s Arts, Paris, 3 February, dir. and des. Georges Pitoeff. 1929 Three Sisters, Fortun e Theatre , London , 23r d October , dir . and des . Theodore Komisarjevsky , trans . Constanc e Garnett , Glen-Bya m Sha w (Tusenbach). 1930 Uncle Vanya, Cort Theatre, New York, 15 April, dir. Jed Harris, des. Jo Mielziner. 1930 The Seagull, Fortune Theatre , London , 2 5 September , dir . Phili p Ridgeway, trans . Constanc e Garnett , Miria m Lewe s (Arkadina) , Glen Byam Shaw (Konstantin). 1931 The Proposal and *The Anniversary, Kingswa y Theatre , London , 7 December, Prague Group of MKAT, (MAT), dir. P. Pavlov. Guest production. 1931 The Cherry Orchard, Kingsway Theatre , London , 2 1 December , Prague Group of MKAT, dir. P. Pavlov. Guest production. 1933 The Cherry Orchard, Civi c Repertory Theatre , New York, 6 March, dir. Ev a L e Gallienne , des . Alin e Bernstein , Ev a L e Gallienn e (Varya) , Alia Nazimova (Ranevskaya) . This was a revival of the 1928 production. 1933 The Cherry Orchard, Old Vi c Theatre , London , 9 October , dir . Tyrone Guthrie , des . Frederic k Crook e an d Sophi a Harris , Mariu s Goring (Epihodov) , Els a Lancheste r (Carlotta) , Charle s Laughto n (Lopakhin), Roger Livesey (Simionov-Pischik), Flora Robson (Varia). 1935 Three Sisters, Old Vic, London, 1 2 November, dir. Henry Cass. Z

935 33 Obmoroka (33 Fainting Fits: The Proposal, The Bear, Jubilee), Meyerhold Theatre, Moscow, 25 March, dir. V E . Meyerhold, des . V A. Shestakov.

1936 The Seagull, Ne w Theatre, London, 2 0 May, dir. and des . Theodore

250 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

APPENDIX 2 : SELEC T STAG E PRODUCTION S

Komisarjevsky, Pegg y Ashcrof t (Nina) , Edit h Evan s (Arkadina) , Joh n Gielgud (Trigorin), Martita Hunt (Masha). 1937 Uncle Vanya, Westminster Theatre, London, 5 February, dir. Michael Macowan, trans . Constanc e Garnett , des . Pete r Goffin , Alexi s Franc e (Sonya), Lydi a Sherwoo d (Yelena) , Ceci l Trounce r (Astrov) , Harcour t Williams (Vanya). 1938 Three Sisters, Queen's Theatre , London , 2 8 January , dir . Miche l Saint-Denis, des . Motley ( a desig n tri o consistin g o f Margare t ('Percy' ) Harris, he r siste r Sophi e an d Elizabet h Montgomery) , lightin g des . George Devine , Pegg y Ashcrof t (Irina) , Georg e Devin e (Andrey) , Joh n Gielgud (Vershinin) , Alec Guinness (Fedotik), Michael Redgrave (Tusenbach), Glen-Byam Shaw (Soliony). 1938 The Seagull, Shubert Theatre , Ne w York , 2 8 March , dir . Rober t Milton, des . Robert Edmon d Jones , Lyn n Fontain e (Arkadina) , Sydne y Greenstreet (Sorin), Uta Hagen (Nina), Alfred Lunt (Trigorin). 1939 La Mouette (The Seagull), Theatre de s Mathurins, Paris, 17 January, dir. and des. Georges Pitoeff. 1939 Three Sisters, Longacre, New York, 14 October, dir. Dwight Wiman. 1940 Tri sestry (Three Sisters), MAT , Moscow , 2 4 April , dir . V . I . Nemirovich-Danchenko, des. V. V. Dmitriev. 1940 Firs t performanc e o f Platonov in English, entitle d Fireworks on the James, Provincetown Playhouse, Massachusetts, USA, dir. McCormick. 1941 The Cherry Orchard, Ne w Theatre, London, 2 8 August, The Surrey Players, dir . Tyron e Guthrie , des . Frederic k Cooke , Jame s Dal e (Lopa khin), Nicholas Hannen (Gaev) , Athene Saylor (Ranevskaya). 1942 The Three Sisters, Barrymor e Theatre , New York, 2 1 December, dir. Guthrie McClintic , des . Motley, Judith Anderso n (Olga) , Rut h Gordo n (Natasha), Alexander Knox (Tusenbach). 1944 Chaika (The Seagull), Kamern y (Chamber ) Theatre , Moscow , January-February, dir . Alexande r Tairo v (1885-1950) , des . E . Kova lenko and V. Krivosheina (Act One), Alisa Koonen (1889-1974) (Nina). 1945 Uncle Vanya, New Theatre, London, Ol d Vic Company, 1 6 January, dir. John Burrell, des. Tanya Moiseiwitsch, Margare t Leighto n (Helena) , Laurence Olivie r (Astrov) , Joyc e Redma n (Sonia) , Ralp h Richardso n (Vanya), Sybil Thorndike (Marina), Harcourt Williams (Serebryakov). 251 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

APPENDIX 2 : SELEC T STAG E PRODUCTION S

1948 17 Gabbiano (The Seagull), Piccolo Theatre, Milan, 24 November, dir. Giorgio Strehler, des. Gianni Ratto, trans. Enzo Ferrieri. 1949 The Proposal, Ol d Vic, London, 2 8 February, dir . Laurence Olivier , des. Roge r Furse , trans . Constanc e Garnett , Pete r Cushin g (Lomov) , Peggy Simpson (Natasha). 1954 The Cherry Orchard, Lyri c Theatre , Hammersmith , London , 2 1 May, dir. John Gielgud , des. Richard Lake , trans. Ariadne Nicolaeff an d John Gielgud. 1954 La Cerisaie (The Cherry Orchard), Theatr e d e Marigny , Paris , 7 October, dir . Jean-Louis Barrault , des . Wakhevitch, Jean-Louis Barraul t (Trofimov), Marie-Helene Daste (Charlotta). 1955 17 Giardino dei Ciliegi (The Cherry Orchard), Piccolo Theatre, Milan, 13 January, dir. Giorgio Strehler, des. Tanya Moiseiwitsch, trans. Virginia Puecher and Barbara Parfiliev . 1956 Ce Fou de Platonov [Platonov], Bordeau x Festival , May , dir . Jea n Vilar, Jean Vilar (Platonov). 1958 *A Tragedian in Spite of Himself, Toynbee Theatre , London , 1 2 April, dir. Dmitri Makaroff. 1958 The Cherry Orchard, Sadler s Wells , London , 1 5 May , MAT , dir . V Ya . Stanitsyn. Guest production. 1958 Uncle Vanya, Sadler s Wells , London , 2 0 May , MAT , dir . M . M . Kedrov. Guest production. 1958 Three Sisters, Sadlers Wells , London , 1 6 June, MAT , origina l dirs . V I . Nemirovich-Danchenk o an d I . M . Rayevsky . Gues t productio n from rep. 1959 Don Juan (in the Russian Manner) ["'Platonov], Nottingha m Play house, Nottingham, 6 April, dir. Val May, des. Marsh King , trans. Basil Ashmore. 1959 Platonov e altri [Platonov], Piccol o Theatre , Milan , 2 7 April , dir . Giorgio Strehler, des. Luciano Damiani, trans. Ettore Lo Gatto. 1960 Platonov, Royal Cour t Theatre , 1 3 October, dir . George Devine an d John Blatchley , des . Richar d Negri , lightin g Richar d Pilbrow , trans . Dmitri Makaroff , Re x Harriso n (Platonov) , Rache l Robert s (Ann a Petrovna).

252 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

APPENDIX 2 : SELEC T STAG E PRODUCTION S

1961 The Seagull, Malmo Cit y Theatre , Sweden , 6 January, dir . Ingma r Bergman. 1961 The Cherry Orchard, Aldwyc h Theatre , London , 1 4 December, dir . Michel Saint-Denis , des . Abd'Elkade r Farrah , trans . Ariadn e Nicolaef f and Joh n Gielgud , Pegg y Ashcrof t (Ranyevskaya) , Jud i Denc h (Ania) , John Gielgu d (Gayev) , Ia n Hol m (Trofimov) , Georg e Murcel l (Lopa khin), Dorothy Tutin (Varia). 1962 Uncle Vanya, Chichester Festiva l Theatre , Chichester , 1 6 July, dir . Laurence Olivier, des. Sean Kenny and Beatrice Dawson, Sybil Thorndike (Marina), Laurenc e Olivie r (Astrov) , Michae l Redgrav e (Vanya) , Joa n Plowright (Sonia). 1963 Uncle Vanya, Old Vic, London, National Theatre, 1 9 November, dir. Laurence Olivier , des . Sea n Kenny , trans . Constanc e Garnett , Michae l Redgrave (Vanya), Laurence Olivier (Astrov), Joan Plowright (Sonia). 1964 *On the Harmfulness of Tobacco, The Littl e Theatre , London , 2 8 April, dir. Ralph Wilton. 1964 The Cherry Orchard, Aldwyc h Theatre, London, 2 9 May, MAT, dir. V Ya. Stanitsyn. World Theatre Season guest production. 1965 Tri sestry (Three Sisters), Gorki Theatre , Bolsho i Dram a (BDT) , Leningrad, 2 3 January, dir. Georgi Tovstonogov, des. Sofia Yunovich. 1965 Three Sisters, Aldwyc h Theatre , London , Actor s Studi o Theatr e (USA), 13 May, dir. Lee Strasberg. Guest production. 1965 Ivanov, Phoenix Theatre , London , 3 0 September , dir . John Gielgud , des. Rouben Ter-Arutunian, John Gielgud (Ivanov). 1966 Chaika (The Seagull), Leni n Komsomo l Theatre , Moscow , dir . Anatoly Efros, des. V Lalevich and N. Sosunov. 1967 Three Sisters, Ol d Vic, London, NT, 4 July, dir. Laurence Olivier, des. Josef Svoboda , trans. Moura Budberg, Anthony Hopkins (Andrey) , Joan Plowright (Masha), Robert Stephens (Vershinin). 1967 Tri sestry (Three Sisters), Malay a Bronnay a (Mosco w Drama ) Theatre, Moscow, dir. Anatoly Efros, des. Diukgin and Chernova. 1969 Dyadya Vanya (Uncle Vanya), Central Soviet Army Theatre (now the Russian Arm y Theatre) , Moscow , dir . J. Heifetz . Se e chapte r 8 in thi s volume.

2-53 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

APPENDIX 2 : SELEC T STAG E PRODUCTION S

1969 Three Sisters, Aldwyc h Theatre, London, 2 8 April, Otoma r Krejca' s Theatre Behind the Gate, dir. Otomar Krejca. World Theatre Season. 1970 Chaika (The Seagull), Aldwych Theatre , London, 5 May, MAT , dir. Boris Livanov, des. E. Stenberg. World Theatre Season guest production, originally produced at MAT in 1968. 1970 Chaika (The Seagull), Sovremenni k (Contemporary ) Theatre , Moscow, June-July, dir. Oleg Yefremov, des. Sergei Barkhin. 1970 The Seagull, Art s Theatre, Cambridge, 2 1 July, dir. Richard Cottrell , des. Keith Norman, trans. Richard Cottrell, Lila Kedrova (Arkadina). 1973 The Seagull, Chichester Festiva l Theatre , Chichester , 2 3 May , dir . Jonathan Miller, trans. Elisaveta Fen, des. Patrick Robertson. 1973 Uncle Vanya, Joseph E . Levine Theatre , Ne w York , June 1973 , dir. Mike Nichols , trans . Alber t Tood , Juli e Christi e (Yelena) , Lillia n Gis h (Marina), George C. Scott (Astrov), Nicol Williamson (Vanya). 1973 The Wood-Demon, Art s Theatre , Cambridge , 1 0 September , dir . David Giles , des. Kenneth Mellor , trans . Ronald Hingley , Ian McKellen (Khruschov). 1974 *Tatyana Repina, Mul l Littl e Theatre , Scotland , dirs . Barri e an d Marianne Hesketh, des. Barrie Hesketh, trans. Ronald Hingley. 1974 17 giardino de ciliegi (The Cherry Orchard), Piccolo Theatre, Milan, 21 May, dir Giorgi o Strehler , des . Luciano Damiani , trans. Luigi Lunari and Giorgio Strehler. 1975 Vishnyovy sad (The Cherry Orchard), Taganka Theatre, Moscow, 30 June, dir . Anatoly Efros , des . Valery Levental , Ali a Demidov a (Ranevs kaya), Vladimir Vysotsky (Lopakhin). 1975 Vishnyovy sad (The Cherry Orchard), Sovremennik (Contemporary ) Theatre, Moscow, dir. Oleg Yefremov, des . Sergei Barkhin. 1976 Ivanov, MAT , Moscow , December , dir . Ole g Yefremov , des . Davi d Borovsky, Innokenty Smoktunovsky (Ivanov). See Appendix 4. 1976 Three Sisters, Yvonne Arnau d Theatre , Guildford , 2 0 April , di r Jonathan Miller, des. Patrick Robertson, trans. Elisaveta Fen. 1977 The Cherry Orchard, Vivian Beaumon t Theatre , Ne w York , 1 7 February, dir . Andre i Serban , des . Sant o Loquasto , Mery l Stree p (Duniasha), Irene Worth (Ranevskaya). (See p. 143).

2-54 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

APPENDIX 2 : SELEC T STAG E PRODUCTION S

1977 The Cherry Orchard, a ne w Englis h versio n b y Trevo r Griffiths , Nottingham Playhouse , Nottingham , 1 0 March, dir . Richard Eyre , des. John Gunter, from a trans, by Helen Rappaport, Brian Glover (SimeonovPischik), Dave Hill (Lopakhin), Antony Sher (Epikhodov), Bridget Turner (Ranevsky). This production was reproduced for BBC television in 1981. 1978 The Cherry Orchard, i n a versio n b y Pete r Gill , fro m a litera l translation b y Ted Braun, Riversid e Studios , Hammersmith , London , 6 January, dir. Peter Gill, des. William Dudley. 1978 The Cherry Orchard, NT, 1 4 February , dir . Pete r Hall , des . Joh n Bury, trans . Michae l Frayn , Alber t Finne y (Lopakhin) , Be n Kingsle y (Trofimov), Robert Stephens (Gayev). 1978 Three Sisters, Residenztheater , Munich , 2 2 June , dir . Ingma r Bergman. Guest production. 1979 Three Sisters, Th e Othe r Place , Stratford-upon-Avon , RSC , 2 9 September, dir . Trevor Nunn , des . John Napier, trans. Richard Cottrell , Suzanne Bertis h (Masha) , Jane t Dal e (Olga) , Edwar d Petherbridg e (Vershinin), Emily Richard (Irina) , Timothy Spal l (Andrey) , Susan Tracy (Natasha). (See chapters 9 and 11.) 1979 Uncle Vanya, a ne w versio n b y Pa m Gems , Hampstea d Theatre , London, 2 2 November, dir . Nancy Meckler, des . Alison Chitty, Maurice Denham (Serebryakov) , Nige l Hawthorn e (Vanya) , Ia n Hol m (Astrov) , Susan Littler (Yelena), Alison Steadman (Sonya). 1980 Chaika (The Seagull), MAT, Moscow, July, dir . Oleg Yefremov, des . Valery Levental , (restagin g o f 197 0 Sovremenni k production) . Se e Appendix 4. 19 81 The Seagull, Share d Experienc e Company , Oxford , Crucibl e Studio , Sheffield, 1 2 September , dir . Mik e Alfreds , Gillia n Barg e (Arkadina) , Philip Osment (Konstantin), Philip Voss (Dorn). 1981-83 La Cerisaie (The Cherry Orchard), Les Bouffes d u Nord (1983) , Paris, 1 2 March, dir . Peter Brook , des . Chloe Obolensky , fro m a literal trans, b y Lusi a Lavrova , adapt . Jean-Claud e Carriere , Niel s Arestru p (Lopakhin), Maurice Benicho u (Trofimov) , Irin a Broo k (Ania) , Natasha Parry (Ranevskaya) , Miche l Piccol i (Gaev) . Toure d internationall y fo r several years, including to Moscow and New York. 19 81 The Seagull, Roya l Court , London, 8 April, dir. Max Stafford-Clark , des. Gemma Jackson, adapt. Thomas Kilroy, Anton Lesser (Konstantin),

2-55 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

APPENDIX 2 : SELEC T STAG E PRODUCTION S

Anna Masse y (Arkadina) , Ala n Rickma n (Trigorin) , Harrie t Walte r (Nina). (See chapter 7.) 1981 Die Drei Schwestern (Three Sisters), Berli n Schaubiihne, West Berlin, dir. Peter Stein, des. Karl Ernst Herrman. 1981 Three Sisters (Tri sestri), Tagank a Theatre , Moscow , dir . Yur i Lyubimov, des . Yur i Konenko , Ali a Demidov a (Masha) . (Se e chapter s 12, 14, 15 and Appendix 4). 1982 The Cherry Orchard, Roun d House , London (Oxfor d Playhouse) , 5 August, dir . Mike Alfreds, des . Nadine Baylis, trans. Lilia Sokolov a an d Mike Alfreds, Alison Fiske (Ranevskaya). 1984 The Seagull, Tyl Theatre , Prague , dir . Otoma r Krejca , des . Jose f Svoboda. (See chapter 1 2 and Appendix 4.) 1984 Wild Honey [versio n o f Platonov], trans , and adapt . Michael Frayn , NT, London , 1 9 July, dir . Christophe r Morahan , des . John Gunter , Ia n McKellen (Platonov). (See chapter 11.) 1984 La Mouette (The Seagull). Theatre Nationa l d e Chaillot , Paris , 9 February, dir. and trans. Antoine Vitez, des. Yannis Kokkos. (See chapter 12 and Appendix 4.) 1985 Dyadya Vanya (Uncle Vanya), MAT, Moscow , February , dir . Ole g Yefremov. 1985 The Seagull, a new English versio n b y Tania Alexande r an d Charle s Sturridge, Oxfor d Playhous e Company , Oxfor d an d the n Lyric Theatre, Hammersmith, London, 22 April, dir. Charles Sturridge, des. Eileen Diss, transferred t o Queen' s Theatre , London , 2 August , Vaness a Redgrav e (Arkadina), Jonathan Pryce (Trigorin). 1985 The Cherry Orchard, NT , London, 1 6 December, dir . Mike Alfreds , des. Paul Dart, trans . Lilia Sokolov a an d Mike Alfreds , Sheil a Hancoc k (Ranevskaya), Ia n McKelle n (Lopakhin) , Laurenc e Rudi c (Trofimov) . (See chapter 11. ) 1986 Three Sisters, Share d Experienc e Theatr e Company , Bloomsbur y Theatre, London , 1 April, dir . Mik e Alfreds , trans . Mik e Alfred s wit h Nikita Stavisky , des . Pau l Dart , Chlo e Salama n (Irina) , Lesle e Udwi n (Masha), Philip Voss (Chebutykin), Holly Wilson (Olga). 1987 Uncle Vanya, King' s Theatre , Edinburgh , 12-1 3 August , (BDT) , Leningrad, dir. Georgi Tovstonogov. Edinburgh Festival guest production. 256 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

APPENDIX 2 : SELEC T STAG E PRODUCTION S

1988 Trinidad Sisters (version Three Sisters), Donmar Warehouse, London, 9 February , dir . Nichola s Kent , des . Popp y Mitchell , trans . Mustaph a Matura. 1988 The Sneeze, plays and stories by Anton Chekhov, trans, and adapt, by Michael Frayn , Aldwyc h Theatre , London , 2 7 September , whic h con sisted of Drama (the story of 1887) , The Alien Corn (story 'In a Foreign Land', 1885) , The Sneeze (stor y 'Death of a Government Clerk/Official' , 1883), The Bear, The Evils of Tobacco, The Inspector General (from the story 'A n Aw l i n a Sack' , 1885) ; Michae l Codro n Productio n a t th e Theatre Royal , Newcastle , 2 3 August , an d Aldwyc h Theatre , London , with Rowa n Atkinson , Chery l Campbell , Timoth y West , dir . Ronal d Eyre, des. Mark Thompson. 1989 Three Sisters, Ol d Vic, London, Katona Jozsef Theatre, Budapest, 13 July, dir. Tomas Ascher. Guest production. 1989 Dyadya Vanya (Uncle Vanya), RNT, London , MAT , 1 4 September , dir. Oleg Yefremov, des. Valery Levental. Guest production. 1989 Ivanov, in a version by Ronald Harwood, Yvonne Arnaud Theatre, 7 February, transferre d t o Th e Stran d Theatre , London , 1 0 April , dir . Elijah Moshinsky , des . Mar k Thompson , Ala n Bate s (Ivanov) , Felicit y Kendall (Anna Petrovna). 1990 Three Sisters, Roya l Court , London, 2 4 July, dir. Adrian Noble , des. Bob Crowley , trans . Ros e Culle n an d Fran k Guinness , Sorch a Cusac k (Olga), Sinead Cusack (Masha), Niamh Cusack (Irena). 1990 Piano, after Chekho v an d base d o n th e origina l fil m An Unfinished Piece for Mechanical Piano b y N . Mikhalko v an d A . Adabashian , Cottesloe Theatre , RNT , London , 8 August , a ne w pla y b y Trevo r Griffiths, dir . Howard Davies , des . Ashley Martin-Davis . Cas t include d Penelope Wilton , Stephe n Moor e an d Stephe n Rea . (Se e chapter s 4 and 13 ) 1990 Three Sisters, Queen's Theatre , London , 1 1 December , Rustavel i Company, Georgia , USSR , gues t dir . Rober t Sturua , des . Giorg i Meskhishvili, adapt . Nikola s Simmond s fro m a translatio n b y Hele n Molchanoff, Jerem y Northam (Andrey) , Vanessa Redgrave (Olga) , Lynn Redgrave (Masha), Jemma Redgrave (Irena). Guest direction and design. 1991 The Seagull, Barbican, London , RSC , 1 July , dir . Terr y Hands , des. Johan Engels , Simo n Russel l Beal e (Konstantin) , Susa n Fleetwoo d (Arkadina). 257 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

APPENDIX 2 : SELEC T STAG E PRODUCTION S

1992 Cherry Orchard, Berlin Schaubiihne, West Berlin, dir. Peter Stein, des. Christopher Shubiger . 1992 The Cherry Orchard, BDT , St Petersburg, dir . Adolphe Shapiro , des. Eduard Kochergin. 1993 Uncle Vanya, Cotteslo e Theatre , London , RNT , 2 5 February , dir . Sean Mathias, des. Stephen Brimson Lewis, Ian McKellen (Vanya). 1994 The Cherry Orchard, premiere d a t Odeon-Theatr e d e L'Europ e fo r the Internationa l Workshop , th e Borders , Paris , April , dir . Le v Dodin , des. Eduard Kochergin. 1994 August, a n adaptatio n o f Uncle Vanya, Theatre Clwyd , Mold , 2 5 October, dir. Anthony Hopkins, des. Eileen Diss. 1995 The Cherry Orchard, versio n b y Peter Gil l from a n origina l transla tion b y Ted Braun , Swa n Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon , RSC , 2 8 June, dir. Adrian Noble, des. Richard Hudson. 1996 Three Sisters, Lyri c Theatre, Hammersmith, London , 7 May, Ou t of Joint Company, dir. Max Stafford-Clark, des . Julian McGowan. 1996 (Uncle) Vanya, Almeida, London , The Wrestling School, 1 9 June, in a version by Howard Barker, dir. Howard Barker, des. Robin Don. 1997 A Play without a Title [Platonov], Mal y (Little ) Theatre , S t Petersburg, Weima r Theatre , Germany , dir . Le v Dodin , des . Alexe i Porai Koshits. Played at London's Barbican Theatre, 1998. 1997 Ivanov, Almeida , London , 1 9 February , dir . Jonatha n Kent , des . Tobias Hoheisel, trans. David Hare, Ralph Fiennes (Ivanov), Ian McDiarmaid (Kosykh), Harriet Walter (Anna Petrovna). 1997 The Seagull, Th e Old Vic, London, Peter Hall Company , 9 May, dir. Peter Hall , des . Joh n Gunter , trans . To m Stoppard , Felicit y Kendal l (Arkadina), Michae l Penningto n (Trigorin) , Davi d Yellan d (Dorn) , Dominic West (Konstantin). 1997 The Wood-Demon, Playhouse, London, 1 8 June, dir. Anthony Clark , des. Joel Froomkin, Abigail Cruttenden (Yelena) , Brian Protheroe (Uncle Zhorzh), Philip Voss (Serebryakov). 1998 Uncle Vanya, Young Vic , London , RSC/Youn g Vi c co-production , 1 April , dir . Katie Mitchell , des . Rae Smith , trans . Davi d Lan , Stephe n Dillane (Vanya). 258 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

APPENDIX 2 : SELEC T STAG E PRODUCTION S

1998 The Seagull, Wes t Yorkshir e Playhouse , Leeds , 2 9 October , dir . Jud e Kelly, des. Robert Innes-Hopkins , Ian McKellen (Dorn) . (See p. 132. ) 2000 The Cherry Orchard, September , RNT , dir . Trevo r Nunn . (Se e chapter 9) . 2000 The Cherry Orchard, dir . Steve Unwin, des . Pamela Howard , Prunell a Scales (Ranevskaya), English Touring Company .

2-59 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

APPENDIX 3

Selected screen version s

(See also chapter 1 3 in this volume, and Jay Leyda, Kino, A History of the Russian Film, Allen and Unwin, London, 1973.) photo, denotes cinematic photographer. * denote s titl e an d furthe r detail s includin g date s o f publicatio n i n Appendix 1. 1911 Romance with Double Bass* (Roman s kontrabasom), prod. Path e Freres, France, dir. Kai Hansen, des. Sabiwsky, photo. Georges Meyer. 1912 Ward No. 6* (Palata No. 6), prod. Stern and Co., and Varyag, Russia, dir. Boris Chaikovsky, photo. Ivan Frolov. 1914 The Daughter of Albion* (Dock Albiona), prod. Russian Ribbon, dir. Boris Glagolin, photo. A. Pechkovsky. Illegal (Bezzakonie*), prod. Russian Ribbon, dir . Boris Glagolin, photo . A. Pechkovsky. 1917 The Flowers are Late* (Tsveti zapozdaliye), prod . Vengero v an d Gardin, Russia , dir . Bori s Sushkevich , des . Serge i Kozlovsky , photo . A. Stanke. 1929 Ranks and people (Chiny i liudi), from thre e storie s b y Chekhov , prod. Mezhrabpomfilm , USSR , dir . Yako v Protazanov , co-dir . Mikhai l Doller, des . Vladimir Yegorov , photo. Konstanti n Kuznetsov , wit h Iva n Moskvin. 1938 The Bear* (Medved), prod. Belgoskino , USSR, dir. Isidor Annensky , des. L. Putiyevskaya, photo. Y. Shapiro. The/A Man in the Case* (Chelovek v futlyare), prod . Sovietskay a Belorus, USSR , dir . Isido r Annensky , des . L . Putiyevskaya , photo . Y. Shapiro.

260 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

APPENDIX 3 : SELEC T SCREE N VERSION S

1944 The Anniversary (Yubiley), prod . Mosfilm , USSR , dir . Vladimi r Petrov, photo. Vladimir Yakovlev. The Wedding* (Svadba), prod . Tbilis i Studios , Georgia , dir . Isido r Annensky, photo. Yuri Yekelchik. The Bear*, prod. Dynamic Films Inc., USA, dir. Nathan Zucker. 1955 The Gadfly/The Butterfly*/ The Grasshopper (Poprygunya), prod. Mosfilm, USSR , dir . Samso n Samsonov , photo . F . Dobronravo v an d V Monakhov . 1959 A Work of Art (Khudozhestvo), prod . Mosfilm , USSR , dir . M. Kovalev. 1960 The Lady with the Little Dog* (Dama s sobachkoi), prod. Lenfilm , USSR, dir. Joseph Heifetz, with Alexei Batalov and Iya Savvina. 1964 Three Sisters (Tri sestry), prod . Mosfilm , USSR , dir . Samso n Samsonov. Three Sisters, prod. Ely Landau-Actors Studio Inc., USA, dir. Paul Bogart. 1968 The Seagull*, prod. Warner Bros, USA, dir. Sidney Lumet, with James Mason, Vanessa Redgrave, Simone Signoret, David Warner. 1970 Three Sisters*, prod . El y Landa u Organizatio n Inc. , USA , dir . Laurence Olivier , wit h Ala n Bates , Dere k Jacobi , Sheil a Reid , Joa n Plowright, Louise Purnell, Laurence Olivier. The Seagull* (Chaika), prod. Mosfilm, USSR, dir. Juli Karasik. 1972 Uncle Vanya* (Dyadya Vanya), prod. Mosfilm , USSR , dir . Andre i Konchalovsky. Belated flowers* (Tzvety zapozdalye), prod. Mosfilm, USSR , dir. Abram Room. 1976 An Unfinished Piece for Mechanical Piano (Mekhanicheskoe pianino), prod. Mosfilm , USSR , dir . Nikita Mikhalkov , wit h Alexande r Kaliagin, Elena Solovei, Oleg Tabakov. 1977 The Shooting Party (Drama na okhote), prod . Mosfilm , USSR , dir . Emil Loteanu. 1983 The Cherry Orchard*, Trevor Griffiths ' version , prod . BB C TV, dir. Richard Eyre , des . Susa n Spence , wit h som e o f cas t fro m 197 7 Not tingham Playhouse production (see Appendix 2). 1990 Uncle Vanya*, prod. BBC/WNET , UK/USA , adapt . Davi d Mamet , dir. Gregory Mosher, with Ian Bannen, Ian Holm.

261 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

APPENDIX 3 : SELEC T SCREE N VERSION S

1992 Three Sisters,* prod. Hunni a Jatekfilmsstudio , Hungary , dir . Ando r Lukats. 1994 Vanya on 42nd Street, prod. Mayfai r Entertainment , UK , dir . Louis Malle, origina l stag e productio n directe d b y Andre Gregory , screenpla y adapt. Davi d Mamet , wit h Andr e Gregory , Madhu r Jaffrey , Juliann e Moore, Wallace Shawm, Brooke Smith. 1996 August, adapt , fro m Uncle Vanya*, prod. Granad a Films/Majesti c Films, UK , dir . Anthon y Hopkins , writte n b y Julia n Mitchell , wit h Anthony Hopkins and Leslie Phillips.

262 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPH Y

This ha s bee n compile d wit h th e emphasi s o n th e dramati c works . Fo r Russian an d othe r critica l source s o n Chekhov , se e endnotes t o chapters . Transliteration follows that of the given title. Chekhov's Russia: social/historical context Bruford, Walte r H. , Chekhov and His Russia, A Sociological Study, 2n d edn , Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1948 ; reprinted Archo n Books, Hamden, Conn., 1971. Charques, Richard , The Twilight of Imperial Russia, Oxfor d Universit y Press , Oxford, 1958. Figes, Orlando, A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924, Jonatha n Cape, London, 1996; Pimlico, Random House, London, 1997. Fitzlyon, Kryil , an d Tatian a Browning , Before the Revolution, A View of Russia under the Last Tsar, Allen Lane, London, 1977. Katkov, George , Erwi n Oberlander , Nikolau s Poppe , Geor g Vo n Rauch , eds. , Russia Enters the Twentieth Century, Methuen, London, 1973. Obolensky, Chloe, The Russian Empire, A Portrait in Photographs, Jonathan Cape, London, 1979. Roosevelt, Priscilla , Life on the Russian Country Estate, A Social and Cultural History, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1995. Seton-Watson, H., The Decline of Imperial Russia, Methuen, London, 1952. Turkov, Andrei , ed. , Anton Chekhov and His Times, trans . Cynthi a Carlil e an d Sharon McKee, University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, 1995. Chekhov's Russia: theatre context Amiard-Chevrel, Claudine, Le Theatre Artistique de Moscou (1898-1917), Edition s du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, 1979. Bakshy, Alexander, The Path of the Modern Russian Stage and other Essays, Ceci l Palmer and Hayward, London, 1916. Bassekhes, A., Khodozhniki na stene MXAT, Vserossiyskoe teatralnoe obshchestvo, Moscow, i960. Benedetti, Jean, Stanislavski: A Biography, Methuen, London, 1990. 266 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPH Y

Braun, E., Meyerhold, A Revolution in Theatre, Methuen, London, 1995. Brodsky, A., ed., Moskovskii Khodozhestvennyi teatr vtoroi, Moscow, 1925. Davydova, M., Ocherki istorii russkogo teatralno-dekoratsionnogo iskusstvo xvmnachala xx vekov, Moscow, 1974. Freidkina, L., Dni igody VI. I. Nemirovicho-Danchenko, Moscow, 1962. Gitovich, N . I., Letopis Zhizni i tvorchestva, A. P. Chekhova, Gos. Izd. Khudoz hestvennoy literatury, Moscow, 1955. Gortchakov, N., Vakhtangov, Metteur en scene, Moscow, n.d. Hapgood, E., trans, and ed., Stanislavsky's Legacy, Theatr e Arts Book, New York, 1958; reprint Methuen, London, 1981. Knipper-Chekhova, Olg a Leonardovna , Correspondence: I8<)6-I<)S9, Moscow , 1972. Leyda, J., Kino, A History of the Russian Film, Allen and Unwin, London, 1973. Lunacharsky, A., O teatre i dramaturgii, vol I, Moscow, 1958. Markarova, M. , T. Modestova, eds. , Pesi A. P. Chekhova v Moskovskom khodozhestvennom teatre, Moscow, 1961. Markov, P., ed., A. Ya.Tairov, VTO Moskva, Moscow, 1967. Marshall, H., The Pictorial History of the Russian Theatre, Crown Publishers Inc., New York, 1977. Meyerhold, Vsevolod, Theatre naturaliste et theatre d'atmosphere, in his Ecrits sur le theatre, L'Age d'homme, trans. Beatrice Picon-Vallin, POK, Lausanne, 1973-92. Mikhalsky, F. , ed. , Moskovskii khodozhestvennyi teatr v sovetskoi epokhe, Moscow, 1974. Moser, Charle s A. , ed., The Cambridge History of Russian Literature, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989. Nemirovich-Danchenko, V . I., My Life in the Russian Theatre, trans. J. Cournos , Bles, London, 1937; reprint London, 1968. V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko - Teatralnoe nasledie, Moscow, 1954. Pichkhadze, L., ed., Moskovskii khodozhestvennyi teatr, Moscow, 1978. Polyakova, E. , ed., Stanislavskii, Moscow , 1977 ; English edition Foreign Language Publishing House, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1977. Pozharskaya, M. , Russkoe teatralno-dekoratsionnoe iskusstvo kontsa xix, nachala xx vekov, Moscow, 1970. Rudnitsky, K., Meyerhold the Director, ed. S. Schultze, trans. G. Petrov, Ann Arbor, Mich., USA, 1981. Russian and Soviet Theatre, Tradition and the Avant-Garde, trans . Roxan e Permar and ed. Lesley Milne, Thames and Hudson, London, 1988. Russkoe rezhisserskoe iskusstvo 1898-1907, Moscow , 1989. Sayler, Oliver M., Inside the Moscow Art Theatre, first publishe d Brentano's , New York, 1925 ; reprinte d an d facsimil e editio n Greenwoo d Press , Westport , Conn., 1970. Schuler, Catherin e A. , Women in Russian Theatre, the Actress in the Silver Age, Routledge, London and New York, 1996. Senelick, Laurence , ed. , National Theatre in Northern and Eastern Europe, 1746-1900, Cambridg e Universit y Pres s Serie s Theatre in Europe: A Documentary History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1991. Shakh-Azizova, T . K. , Chekhov i zapadno-yevropeyskaya drama yego vremeni, Nauka, Moscow, 1966. 267 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPH Y

Simonov, Ruben , Stanislavsky's Protege, Eugene Vakhtangov, trans. M . Goldina , DBS Publications Inc., New York, 1969. Sokolova, N. , V . Ryndin , B . Volkov , eds. , j o let khodozhniki teatra, Moscow, 1969. Solovyeva, Inna , ed. , Rezhisserskie ekzemplyary K. S. Stanislavskogo, vol. in, 1901-4, Isskustvo, Moscow, 1983. Stanislavski, C, My Life in Art, trans. J. J. Robbins, Bles, London, 1962. Stanislavsky, K., Sobranie sochinenii v vostni totnakh, Moscow, 1969. Stroeva, M . N. , Rezhisserskiye iskaniya Stanislavskogo 1898-1917, Moscow , 1973. Rezhisserskiye iskaniya Stanislavskogo lyij-iy^H, Moscow , 1977. Svobodin, A. P., ed., Teatr 'Sovremennik', Moscow, 1973. Toporkov, V . O. , Stanislavski in Rehearsal, trans . C . Edwards , Routledge , Ne w York, 1979; reprint 1998. Tovstonogov, G. , Quarante ans de mise en scene, Foreign Language s Publishin g House, Les Editions du Progres, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1976. Van Gyseghem, A., Theatre in Soviet Russia, Faber and Faber, London, 1943. Varneke, B.V. , History of the Russian Theatre, Seventeenth through Nineteenth Century, trans. Bori s Brasol , reprin t edn . Bell e Marti n (fascimil e o f 195 1 edition), Hafner Publishing Company, New York, 1971. Vendrovskaya, L. , G . Kaptereva , eds. , Evgeny Vakhtangov, trans. D . Bradbury , Foreign Languages Publishing House, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1982. Voitsekhovskaya, N . K. , D . M . Shvarts , eds. , Teatr imeni Gorkogo, Leningrad , 1968. Worrall, Nick, The Moscow Art Theatre, Routledge, London, 1996. Yuzovsky, Yu., Razgovor zatianulsia za polnoch, Moscow, 1966. Znosko-Borovsky, E., Russkii teatr nachala XXveka, Prague , 1925. Selected primary sources in Russian Balukhaty, S . D. , an d others , eds. , Collected Works/Letters, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem A. P. Chekhova v 20/ totnakh, Moscow, 1944-51 . Belchikov, N . F. , an d others , eds. , Anton Chekhov, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem v }oi tomakh, Moscow, 1974-83. Chekhov, Anton, Chto chashche vsego vstrechayetsya . . . , 188 0 (A. P. Chekhov, Things Most Frequently Encountered in Novels, Stories and Other Such Things), Works/Letters, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem v 3oi tomakh, Moscow, 1974-83, vol. 1, 1880-2. Yelpatyevsky, S . Y., and others , eds. , Chekhov in the Memoirs of his Contemporaries, Chekhov v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov, Moscow, 1954. Yermilov, V. V., and others, eds., Collected Works/Letters, Anton Chekhov, Sobranie sochinenii i pisem v izi tomakh, Moscow, 1960-4. Selected primary sources in Russian: letters and other works Chekhov, M. P., Anton Chekhov i yego syuzhety, Moscow, 1923. Vokrug Chekhova. Vstrechi i vpechatleniya, Moskovsk y rabochy , Moscow , 1980. 268 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPH Y

Chekhov, Al. P., Pisma A. P. Chekhovu yego brata Aleksandra Chekhova, ed. I. S. Yezhov, Moscow, 1939. Chekhova, Maria P., Iz dalyokogo proshlogo, Moscow, i960. Derman, A. B., ed., Perepiska A. P. Chekhova i O. L. Knipper, vol. I, 1934, vol. 11 , 1936, Moscow. Surkov, Ye. D., ed., Chekhov i teatr: pisma, felyetony, sovremenniki o Chekhovedramaturge, Isskustvo, Moscow, 1961. Vinogradov, V . V. an d others , ed. , Literaturnoye nasledstvo: Chekhov, Moscow, i960.

Selected primary sources in English: plays Alexander, Tania, and Charles Sturridge, eds., trans. The Seagull, Amber Lane Press Ltd., Oxford, 1986 . Ashmore, Basil, ed., Don Juan (in the Russian Manner), P. Nevil, London, 1952. Baukhage, Hilmar, ed., The Boor [sic. The Bear], Samuel French, New York, 1915. Baukhage, Hilmar, and Barrett H. Clark, eds., A Marriage Proposal [The Proposal], Samuel French, New York, 1914. Bentley, Eric , an d Theodor e Hoffman , eds. , trans. , The Brute, and Other Farces (The Harmfulness of Tobacco, Swan Song, The Brute, A Marriage Proposal, Summer in the Country (eds . note : mor e usuall y know n a s The Reluctant Tragedian or A Tragic Role), A Wedding, The Celebration (more usuall y Jubilee or The Anniversary)), Grove Press, New York, 1958. Bristow, Eugene K., ed., Anton Chekhov's Plays, Norton Critica l Edition, Norton , New York, 1977. Butler, Hubert, ed., The Cherry Orchard, Bake r International Pla y Bureau, Boston, 1934Calderon, George , ed. , trans. , Two Plays by Tchekhof, London, 1912 ; Cape , London, 1928. Caylor, Rose, ed., Uncle Vanya, Covici, Friede, New York, 1930. Cournos, John, That Worthless Fellow Platonov, Dutton, New York, 1920. Covan, Jenny, ed., The Cherry Orchard, Brentano's, New York, 1922. The Moscow Art Theatre Series of Russian Plays, Brentano's, New York, 1922. Uncle Vanya, Brentano's, New York, 1922. Dunnigan, Ann , ed. , The Major Plays (Ivanov, The Sea Gull, Uncle Vanya, The Three Sisters, The Cherry Orchard), Signet, New York, 1964. Fell, Marian, ed. , Plays by Anton Tchekoff, Scribner' s Sons , New York, 1912-16 ; Duckworth, London, 1913. Ivanoff, Brentano's, New York, 1923. Five Famous Plays, Duckworth, London, 1939. Six Famous Plays, Duckworth, London, 1949. Fen, Elisaveta, ed., trans., Three Plays, The Cherry Orchard, Three Sisters, Ivanov, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1951. Chekhov Plays, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1954 . Frayn, Michael, Wild Honey, the untitled play by Anton Chekhov [Platonov] i n a version b y Michae l Frayn , post-productio n edition , Methuen , Londo n an d New York, 1985. Frayn, Michael, ed., trans., Chekhov Plays: The Seagull, Uncle Vanya, Three Sisters, 269 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPH Y

The Cherry Orchard, The Evils of Tobacco, Swan Song, The Bear, The Proposal, Methuen, London, 1988. The Sneeze, translated an d adapte d b y Michae l Frayn , contain s th e play s The Bear, The Evils of Tobacco, Swan Song, The Proposal, an d dramatisation s of the stories 'Drama ' (1887) , The Alien Corn (story 'In a Foreign Land', 1885) , The Sneeze (fro m th e stor y 'Deat h o f a Governmen t Clerk' , 1883) , The Inspector General (fro m th e stor y 'A n Aw l i n a Sack' , 1885) , Methuen , London, 1989. Garnett, Constance , ed., trans., The Cherry Orchard, and Other Plays, Chatt o and Windus, London, 1923; Seltzer, New York, 1924. Plays, Chatto and Windus, London, 1925-1928. Plays, Modern Library, New York, 1930. The Three Sisters, and Other Plays, Chatto and Windus, London, 1923. Gems, Pam, Uncle Vanya, A New Version, Eyre Methuen, London, 1979. Gielgud, John, versio n o f Ivanov fro m a litera l translatio n b y Ariadn e Nicolaeff , Heinemann, London, 19 66. Gill, Peter, version o f The Cherry Orchard from a literal translation b y Ted Braun, Oberon, London, 1995. Gottlieb, Vera, trans, and adapt. A Chekhov Quartet, two plays and two short stories, dramatised version o f ' A Moscow Hamlet', fro m th e story ' V Moskve', 1891, and 'Accounts', from the story 'Razmaznya', 1883 , with Swan Song and On the Harmfulness of Tobacco, Harwood Academic, GMBH., Amsterdam, 1995. Griffiths, Trevor , ed., The Cherry Orchard, Pluto Press Limited, London, 1978. Piano, Faber and Faber, London, 1990. Guthrie, Tyrone, and Leonid Kipnis, eds., The Cherry Orchard, Minnesot a Dram a Editions, University of Minnesota Press, Minn., 1965. The Three Sisters, The Avon Theater Library, Avon, New York, 1965. Uncle Vanya, Minnesot a Dram a Editions, University o f Minnesota Press , Minn., 1969. Harwood, Ronald, version of Ivanov, Amber Lane Press Ltd., Oxford, 1989 . Hingley, Ronald , ed. , trans. , The Oxford Chekhov in 9 Vols., vols. i-in , Th e Plays; vols . rv-ix , Th e Selecte d Storie s 1889-190 4 (exclude s earl y stories) , Oxford Universit y Press , Oxford/Ne w York / Toronto/Melbourne , 1965-80 . See Appendix 1 . Twelve Plays, Oxford University Press, New York, 1992. Iliffe, David, ed., The Seagull, Samuel French, London, 1953. Jarrel, Randall, ed., The Three Sisters, Macmillan, New York, 1969. Kilroy, Thomas, adapt., The Seagull, The Gallery Press, Loughcrew, Meath, Ireland, 1993. Koteliansky, S . S. , ed. , Tchekoff's Plays and Stories, introduction Davi d Magar shack (The Cherry Orchard, The Seagull, The Wood-Demon, Tatyana Repina, On the Harmfulness of Tobacco, and storie s include : 'M y Life' , 'Th e Hous e with th e Mezzanine' , 'Typhus' , 'Gooseberries' , 'I n Exile' , 'Th e Lad y with th e Toy Dog' , 'Goussiev' , ' A Mosco w Hamlet' , 'A t th e Cemetery' , 'A t th e Pos t Office', 'Schulz' , 'Life is Wonderful', ' A Fairy Tale'), J. M. Dent, London, 1937, reprinted 1946. The Wood-Demon, Chatto and Windus, London, 1926. Magarshack, David, ed., trans., The Seagull, D. Dobson, London, 1952. 270 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPH Y

Platonov, Hill and Wang, New York, 1964. Four Plays: Seagull, Uncle Vanya, Three Sisters, The Cherry Orchard, Hil l an d Wang, New York, 1969. Mamet, David, adapt., The Cherry Orchard, Grove, New York, 1985. adapt. Uncle Vanya, Grove, New York, 1985. Mandell, M. S., ed., The Cherry Garden, Yale Courant, New Haven, Conn., 1908. Mitchell, Julian, August (adaptation of Uncle Vanya), Amber Lane, Oxford, 1994 . Nicolaeff, Ariadne, and John Gielgud, eds., trans., Chekhov Plays, Hartsdale House, New York, 1935. Nine Plays by Anton Chekhov, Caxton House, New York, 1946. Senelick, Laurence , ed. , trans. , The Cherry Orchard, Arlingto n Hous e Memorial , Arlington Heights, 111., 1977. The Cherry Orchard and The Seagull, Arlington Hous e Memorial , Arlingto n Heights, III, 1977. Szogy, Alex, ed., Ten Early Plays, Bantam, New York, 1965. West, Julius, ed., The Seagull, Hendersons, London, 1915. Four Short Plays, Duckworth, London, 1915, reprinted 1950 . Plays by Anton Tchekoff, Duckworth, London, 1916; Scribner's Sons, New York, 1916.

Five Famous Plays, Duckworth, London, 1939. Yarmolinsky, Avrahm, ed., trans., The Cherry Orchard, Th e Avon Theater Library, Avon, New York, 1965. The Portable Chekhov, Viking, New York, 1947; 2nd edn, 1968. Young, Stark, The Seagull, Scribner's Sons, London and New York, 1939. Three Sisters, Samuel French, New York and Los Angeles, 1941. The Cherry Orchard, Samuel French, New York, 1947. Best Plays, Modern Library, New York, 1956. For French editions with information an d commentary by Patrice Pavis see: Pavis, Patrice, ed., La Mouette (The Seagull), traduction d'Antoin e Vitez, commentaires et notes de Patrice Pavis, Actes Sud, Le Livre de Poche, Paris, 1985. Oncle Vania (Uncle Vanya), traduction e t preface d e Tonia Galievsk y e t Bruno Sermonne, commentaire s e t note s d e Patrice Pavis , L e Livre d e Poche , Paris, 1986. La Cerisaie (The Cherry Orchard), traduction d'Elen a Pavis-Zahradnikov a e t Patrice Pavis, Le Livre de Poche, Paris, 1988. Les trois soeurs (Three Sisters), traduction d e Jean-Claude Huens, Karel Kraus et Ludmilla Okunieva , introduction e t notes d e Patrice Pavis, Le Livre de Poche, Paris, 1991. M(o)uettes, The Seagull, a contemporar y versio n writte n b y Pavis , Degres , Brussels, 1999.

Selected primary sources in English: stories Garnett, Constance , trans. The Tales of Anton Tchechov (in 1 3 vols.), Chatto an d Windus, London, 1926. (revised Rayfield, D.,) The Chekhov Omnibus, Everyman, London, 199 4 (but not 271 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPH Y

'Panpipes', 'Fortune' , 'Tumbleweed' , 'Th e Kiss' , 'Neighbours' , 'Th e Grass hopper', 'Big Volodia and Little Volodia', and 'Ariadna'). Gottlieb, Nora , Chekhov: The Early Stories, The Bodle y Head , London , i960 ; Anchor Books, Doubleday 8c Company, Inc., Garden City, N.Y, 1961. Hingley, Ronald , The Oxford Chekhov in 9 Vols., vol IV-IX , Th e Selecte d Storie s 1889-1904 (exclude s earl y stories) , Oxfor d Universit y Press , Oxford/Ne w York/Toronto/Melbourne, 1965-80 . Miles, Patrick, an d Harvey Pitcher , Anton Chekhov Early Stories, Oxford's Worl d Classics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999 . Wilks, Ronald, The Kiss and Other Stories, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1982 . The Duel and Other Stories, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1984 . The Party and Other Stories, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1985. The Fiancee and Other Stories, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1986 . See Appendix 1 for full list of stories. Selected primary sources in English: letters and other works Benedetti, Jean , trans , an d ed. , Dear Writer - Dear Actress: the Love Letters of Anton Chekhov and Olga Knipper, Methuen, London, 1996. The Moscow Art Theatre Letters, Methuen, London, 1991. Chekhov, Anto n P. , The Island: A Journey to Sakhalin, introductio n b y Irena Ratushinskaya , trans . Lub a an d Michae l Terpak , Centur y Hutchinson , London, 1987. Friedland, Louis S., selected, trans., ed., Letters on the Short Story, the Drama and Other Literary Topics by Anton Chekhov, 2nd edn , reprinte d Dove r Publica tions, New York, 1966. Hellman, L. , ed. an d introduction , The Selected Letters of Anton Chekhov, trans. S. K. Lederer, Hamish Hamilton, London, 1955, reprinted 1984 . Karlinsky, Simon , selection , commentar y an d introduction , The Letters of Anton Chekhov, trans. Michael Henr y Hei m i n collaboration wit h Simo n Karlinsky, Harper and Row, New York, 1973. Koteliansky, S . S., an d Phili p Tomlinson , trans , an d ed. , The Life and Letters of Anton Tchekhov, 2nd edn, 1925; reprinted Benjamin Blom, New York, 1965. Yarmolinsky, A., selected, trans., ed., Letters of Anton Chekhov, Viking Press, New York, 1973. Secondary sources in English: biographies and memoirs Avilova, Lidiya, Chekhov in My Life: A Love Story, trans . D. Magarshack, Green wood Press, Westport, Conn., 1971. Callow, Philip, Chekhov - The Hidden Ground, Constable, London, 1998. Chukovsky, Kornei , trans. Paulin e Rose , Chekhov the Man, Hutchinson an d Co., London, 1945. Elton, Oliver, Chekhov (The Taylorian Lecture), Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1929 . Garnett, Edward, Chekhov and his Art, London, 1929. Hingley, Ronald , Chekhov, A Biographical and Critical Study, George Alle n an d Unwin, London, 1966. A New Life of Anton Chekhov, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1976 . 272 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPH Y

Koteliansky, S . S. , trans , an d ed. , Anton Tchekhov, Literary and Theatrical Reminiscences, 2n d edn, 1927; reprinted Benjamin Blom, New York, 1965. Koteliansky, S . S. , an d L . Woolf , trans. , Reminiscences of Anton Chekhov by M. Gorky, A. Kuprin, and I. A. Bunin, B. W. Huebsh, New York, 1921. Lafitte, Sophie , Chekhov 1860-11)04, trans. M. Budberg and G . Latta, Angus and Robertson, London, 1974. Magarshack, David , Chekhov: A Life, Faber, London, 1952 ; reprinted Greenwoo d Press, Westport, Conn., 1970. Melchinger, Siegfried, Anton Chekhov, Frederick Ungar, New York, 1972. Nemirovsky, Irene , A Life of Chekhov, trans. E . d e Mauny , Gre y Wall s Press , London, 1950. Priestley, John B., Anton Chekhov, International Textbooks, London, 1970. Pritchett, V. S., Chekhov: A Spirit Set Free, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1988. Rayfield, Donald, Anton Chekhov: A Life, Harper Collins, London, 1997. Saunders, Beatrice, Tchehov the Man, Centaur Press, London, i960 . Senelick, Laurence, Anton Chekhov, Macmillan, Basingstoke and London, 1985. Simmons, Ernes t J. , Chekhov, A Biography, The Universit y o f Chicag o Press , Chicago and London, 1962. Toumanova, Princes s Nin a Andronikova , Anton Chekhov: The Voice of Twilight Russia, Columbia University Press, New York, c. 1937; reprint i960 . Troyat, Henri , Chekhov, trans, from th e French b y Michael Henr y Heim , Dutton , New York, 1986. Yermilov, Vladimir , Anton Pavlovich Chekhov 1860-11)04, Foreig n Language s Publishing House, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1956. Authored/edited critical books on Chekhov Allen, David, Performing Chekhov, Routledge, London, 1999. Balukhaty, Sergei , ed. , 'The Seagull', produced by Stanislavsky, trans . Davi d Magarshack, Dennis Dobson Ltd., London, n.d. Balukhaty, S . D., Problema dramaticheskogo analiza: Chekhov, Academia, Lenin grad, 1927. Balukhaty, S. D., and N. V. Petrov, Dramaturgiya Chekhova, Kharkov, 1935. Berdnikov, G. P., A. P. Chekhov: ideynye i tvorcheskie iskaniya, Moscow, 1970. Chekhov-dramaturg: traditsii i novatorstvo v dramaturgii A. P. Chekhova, Isskustvo, Moscow, 3rd revised reprint, 1972. Barricelli, Jean-Pierre, ed., Chekhov's Great Plays, a Critical Anthology, New York University Press, New York, 1981. Brahms, Caryl , Reflections in a Lake, A Study of Chekhov's Four Greatest Plays, Weidenfeld an d Nicholson, London, 1976. Bruford, W . H. , Anton Chekhov, Yal e Universit y Press , Ne w Haven , Conn. , 1957Bunin, I. A., O Chekhove (Concerning Chekhov), trans. M. A. Aldanova, Chekho v Publishing House, New York, 1955. Chudakov, Alexande r P. , Chekhov's Poetics, trans. E. Cruis e an d D . Dragt, Ardi s Publishers, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1983. Clyman, Toby W., ed., A Chekhov Companion, Greenwoo d Press, Westport, Conn., 1985. 273 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPH Y

Debreczeny, Paul, and Thomas Eekman, eds., Chekhov's Art of Writing, A Collection of Critical Essays, Slavica Publishers, Columbus, Ohio, 1977. Eekman, T., ed., Anton Cechov, 1860-1960, Some Essays, E. J. Brill, Leiden, i960. Efros, Nikolai, 'Tri sestri' i 'Vishnevy sad' v postanovke Moskovskam Khudozhestvennom teatra, Svetozar, Petrograd, 1919. Ehrenbourg, Ilya, A la rencontre de Tchekhov, Didier-Forum, Paris, 1969. Emeljanow, Victor , ed. , Chekhov, The Critical Heritage, Bosto n an d Henley , London, 1981. Erlich, V., ed., Twentieth-Century Russian Literary Criticism, Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn., 1975. Gerhardi, William, Anton Chekhov, A Critical Study, Macdonald, London , 1923 ; reprinted with preface by Michael Holroyd, 1974. Gottlieb, Vera, Chekhov and the Vaudeville, A Study of Chekhov's One-Act Flays, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982. Chekhov in Performance in Russia and Soviet Russia, Chadwyck-Healey, Cam bridge, 1984. Hahn, Beverly , Chekhov, A Study of the Major Stories and Flays, Cambridg e University Press, Cambridge, 1977. Hulanicki, L., and D. Savignac, eds. and trans., Anton Cexov As a Master of StoryTelling, Mouton, The Hague, 1976. Jackson, Rober t Louis , ed., Chekhov, A Collection of Critical Essays, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1967. Katzer, J. , ed. , A. P. Chekhov, 1850-1960, includin g Maxi m Gork y an d Olg a Knipper-Chekhova, Foreig n Languages Publishing House, Progress Publishers, Moscow, i960. Lantz, K. A., Anton Chekhov, A Reference Guide to Literature, G . K. Hall 8 c Co., Boston, 1985. Lakshin, V . Ya. , E . A . Polotskaya , T . K . Shakh-Azizova , an d others , eds. , Chekhoviana: statyi, publikatsii, esse, Nauka, Moscow, 1990. Llewellyn Smith , Virginia , Anton Chekhov and the Lady with the Dog, Oxfor d University Press, Oxford, 1973. Lucas, F. L., The Drama of Chekhov, Synge, Yeats and Pirandello, Cassell , London, 1963. de Maegd-Soep, Carolina, Chekhov and Women, Women in the Life and Work of Chekhov, Slavica Publishers Inc., Columbus, Ohio, 1987. Magarshack, David, Chekhov the Dramatist, New York, Hill and Wang, i960. The Real Chekhov, An Introduction to Chekhov's Last Plays, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1972. Meister, Charles W, Chekhov Bibliography. Works in English by and about Anton Chekhov; American, British, and Canadian Performances, McFarlan d & Co., Jefferson, Nort h Carolina, 1985. Chekhov Criticism, 1880 through 1986, McFarlan d & Co. , Jefferson , Nort h Carolina, 1988. Miles, Patrick , Chekhov on the British Stage 1909-1987 (An Essay in Cultural Exchange), Sam and Sam, England, 1987. Miles, Patrick , ed . Chekhov on the British Stage. Includes Appendix compiled by editor: A Chronology of British Professional Productions of Chekhov's Plays i<)o<)-i<)<)i, Cambridg e Universit y Press, Cambridge, New York, 1993 . 274 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPH Y

Nilsson, Nils Ake, Studies in Chekhov's Narrative Technique, Stockholm, 1968. Paperny, Z. S., 'Chayka' A. P. Chekhova, Khudozhestvennaya literatura , Moscow , 1980. Vopreki vsetn pravilam: pyesy i vodevili Chekhova, Iskusstvo, Moscow, 1982. Paperny, Z . S. , an d E . A . Polotskaya , an d others , eds. , Chekhov i mirovaya literatura, vol. I: Chekhov in France; Chekhov in Germany; Chekhov in Austria; Chekhov in England; Chekhov in Ireland; Chekhov in Belgium, Moscow 1997. Peace, Richar d A. , Chekhov, A Study of the Major Flays, Yale Universit y Press , New Haven, Conn., 1983. Pitcher, Harvey , The Chekhov Flay, A New Interpretation, Chatto an d Windus , London, 1973. Chekhov's Leading Lady, John Murray, London, 1979. Rayfield, Donald , Chekhov: The Evolution of His Art, Barne s an d Noble , Ne w York, 1975. The Cherry Orchard: Catastrophe and Comedy, Twayne Publishers, New York, 1994. Senelick, Laurence, The Chekhov Theatre - a Century of the Plays in Performance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997. Shestov, L., Anton Chekhov and Other Essays, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1966. Speirs, Logan, Tolstoy and Chekhov, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1971. Stroyeva, M., Chekhov i Khudozhestvenny teatr, Iskusstvo, Moscow, 1955. Styan, J . L. , Chekhov in Performance, A Commentary on the Major Plays, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1971. Trudeau, Lawrenc e J., ed. , Drama Criticism, Criticism of the Most Significant and Widely Studied Works from all the World's Literatures, vol. IX , A Special Volume Devoted to Anton Pavlovich Chekhov 1860-1904, Gal e Research , Detroit and London, 1999. Tulloch, John, Chekhov, A Structuralist Study, Macmillan, New York, 1980. Valency, Maurice , The Breaking String, The Plays of Anton Chekhov, Oxfor d University Press, New York, 1966. Vilenkin, V. L., ed., Stanislavsky, K. S., A. P. Chekhov v Moskovskom Khudozhestvennom teatre, Izd. Muzeya MKhATa, Moscow, 1947. Wellek, Rene , an d D . Nonn , eds. , Chekhov: New Perspectives, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1984. Winner, Thomas, Chekhov and His Prose, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1966. Worrall, Nick, File on Chekhov, Methuen, London, 1986. Yermilov, V. , Dramaturgiya Chekhova, Sovetski y pisatel , extende d fro m 1948 , Moscow, 1954. Essays and chapters in collections Barrault, Jean-Louis , 'Pourquoi "La Cerisaie,"', Cahiers Renaud-Barrault , Paris , 1954Bely, Andrey , 'The Cherry Orchard', i n Laurenc e Senelick , ed . Russian Dramatic Theory from Pushkin to the Symbolists, University o f Texa s Press , Austin ,

275 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPH Y

Bentley, Eric, 'Craftsmanship i n Uncle Vanya', in his In Search of Theater, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1953. Braun, Edward , 'Stanislavsk y an d Chekhov' , i n hi s The Director and the Stage, Methuen, London, 1982. Brustein, Robert, 'Anto n Chekhov' , in his The Theatre of Revolt, An Approach to the Modern Drama, Little, Brown, Boston, 1964. Corrigan, Robert W., 'The Drama of Anton Chekhov', in T. Bogard and W. I. Oliver eds., Modern Drama, Essays in Criticism, Oxfor d Universit y Press, New York, 1965. 'The Play s o f Chekhov' , i n his The Theatre in Search of a Fix, Delacorte Press , New York, 1973. Gassner, John , 'Chekho v an d th e Russia n Realists' , i n hi s Masters of the Drama, Random House, New York, 1940. Gilman, Richard, 'Chekhov', in his The Making of Modern Drama, Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux, New York, 1975. Golumb, Harai , A Badenweiler View of Chekhov's End(ings): Beyond the Final Point, Proceedings of the Chekhov International Symposium, October 1985. Gottlieb, Vera, 'Th e "dwindlin g scale" : the Politics o f British Chekhov' , i n Patrick Miles, ed. , an d trans. , Chekhov on the British Stage, Cambridge Universit y Press, Cambridge, 1993. 'Chekhov i n Limbo : Britis h Production s o f th e Play s o f Chekhov' , i n Hann a Scolnikov an d Pete r Holland , eds. , The Play Out of Context, Transferring Plays from Culture to Culture, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989. Guthrie, Tyrone , ' A Director' s Vie w o f The Cherry Orchard', i n T . Guthri e and L . Kipnis, eds. , The Cherry Orchard, University o f Minnesot a Press , Minneapolis, 1965. Holland, Peter , 'Chekho v an d th e Resistan t Symbol' , i n J. Redmond , ed. , Drama and Symbolism, Cambridg e Universit y Press , Cambridge , 198 2 (Theme s i n Drama Series). Knipper-Chekhova, Olga , 'The Last Years', in J. Katzer, ed., A. P. Chekhov, 18601960, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Progress Publishers, Moscow, n.d. Lewis, Allan, 'Th e Comed y o f Frustratio n - Chekhov , "The Cherry Orchard"', in his The Contemporary Theatre: The Significant Playwrights of Our Time, Crown Publishers, New York, 1962. Mann, Thomas , 'Chekhov' , i n Donal d Davi e ed. , Russian Literature and Modern English Fiction, A Collection of Critical Essays, Universit y o f Chicag o Press, Chicago and London, 1965. 'Essai sur Tchekhov', in his Esquisse de ma vie, Gallimard, Paris, 1967 (1956). Maurois, Andre , 'Th e Ar t an d Philosoph y o f Anto n Tchekov' , i n hi s The Art of Writing, trans , fro m th e Frenc h b y Gerar d Hopkins , Th e Bodle y Head , London, i960. Meyerhold, Vsevolod , 'Naturalisti c Theate r o f Mood' , i n Edwar d Braun , ed. , Meyerhold on Theatre, Methuen, London, 1969. Moravcevich, Nicholas , 'Wome n i n Chekhov' s Plays' , i n J . P . Barricell i ed. , Chekhov's Great Plays, a Critical Anthology, New York University Press, New York, 1981. Shevtsova, M., 'Chekhov in France, 1976-79 : Productions b y Strehler, Miquel and

276 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPH Y

Pintile', in Ian Donaldson, ed., Transformations in Modern European Drama, Macmillan, London, 1983. 'The Three Sisters in Frenc h an d Russia n (Theatr e d e l'Enfumerai e an d Teat r Tembr)', i n he r ow n Theatre and Cultural Interaction, Sydney Studies , University of Sydney, 1993. Strehler, Giorgio, Notes de mise-en-scene sur 'La Cerisaie' de Tchekhov, Un Theatre Pour la Vie, Fayard, Paris, 1980. Styan, J. L., 'Naturalistic Shading' , in his The Dark Comedy: The Development of Modern Comic Tragedy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1968. Tynan, Kenneth , 'Theatr e i n Moscow' ; 'The Cherry Orchard', 'Three Sisters', 'Uncle Vanya' an d 'The Troubled Fast' i n hi s Tynan on Theatre, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1964 . Williams, Raymond, 'Anton Chekhov', in his Drama from Ibsen to Brecht, Hogarth Press, London, 1968; revised paperback 1987. Winner, Thomas G. , 'Myt h a s a Device in the Works of Chekhov' , i n B. Slote, ed., Myth and Symbol, Critical Approaches and Applications, Universit y o f Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1963. Worrall, Nick , 'Stanislavsky' s Productio n o f Chekhov' s Three Sisters', in Rober t Russell an d Andre w Barrat t eds. , Russian Theatre in the Age of Modernism, Macmillan, Houndsmills, Basingstoke, 1990.

Journal articles Allen, David, 'Exploring the Limitless Depths: Mike Alfreds Directs Chekhov', New Theatre Quarterly 8, 2 , Cambridg e Universit y Press , Cambridge , Novembe r 1986, pp. 320-35. 'David Jone s Direct s Chekhov' s Ivanov', New Theatre Quarterly 15 , Augus t 1988, pp. 232-46 [Reconstructio n of RSC production]. 'Jonathan Mille r Direct s Chekhov' , New Theatre Quarterly 17, February 1989 , pp. 52-66 [Reconstructio n of Miller's Three Sisters]. Bentley, Eric, 'Chekhov As Playwright', Kenyon Review 7, 1949, pp. 226-50 . Bunin, Ivan, 'Chekhov', Atlantic Monthly 188, 1951, pp. 59-6 3 . Chudakov, Alexander P., 'Newly-Discovered Works by the Young Chekhov', Soviet Literature 10, 1975, pp. 134-42 . Clayton, J . Douglas , 'Cexov' s Djadja Vanja an d Traditiona l Comi c Structure' , Russian Language Journal 40, 136-7, Spring-Fall 1986 , pp. 103-10 . Clyman, Tob y W, 'Chekhov' s Victimize d Women' , Russian Language Journal 28, 1974, PP- 2.6-31. Conrad, Joseph L., 'Sensuality in Cexov's Prose', Slavic and East European Journal 24, 1980, pp. 103-17 . 'Unresolved Tensio n i n Cexov' s Stories , 1886-1888' , Slavic and East European Journal 16, 1972, pp. 55-64 . Corrigan, Rober t W. , 'Som e Aspect s o f Chekhov' s Dramaturgy' , Educational Theatre Journal j , 1955 , pp. 107-14 . Cousin, Geraldine , 'Revisitin g th e Prozorovs' , Modern Drama 40, 3 , Fal l 1997 , pp. 32-5-33-

277 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPH Y

Efros, Anatolij , 'Energy , Enervation , an d th e Mathematic s o f Intrigue' , Anatoli j Efros i n discussio n wit h Spence r Golub , Theatre Quarterly, 7, 26 , Summe r 1977, pp. 28-33. Fodor, A. , 'I n Searc h o f a Sovie t Chekhov' , Journal of Russian Studies 21, 1971, pp. 9-19 . Gerould, Danie l C , 'The Cherry Orchard a s a Comedy' , Journal of General Education 11, 1958 , pp. 109-22 . Gilman, Richard , 'Ivanov, Prologue t o a Revolution', Theatre 22, 2 , Spring 1991, pp. 14-2.7 . 'Broadway Critic s mee t Uncle Vanya, Theatre Quarterly 13 , Februar y 1974 , pp. 67-7 2 [America n critics' mistaken reviews of Mike Nichol's Uncle Vanya]. Glenny, M. , 'Tovstonogo v i n Th e Sovie t Theatre' , Bulletin of the Great BritainUSSR Association 14, Autumn 1966. Golub, S. , 'Actin g o n th e Run : Efro s an d th e Contemporar y Sovie t Theatre' , Theatre Quarterly, 7, 26, Summer 1977, pp. 18-28. Gorky, Maxim , 'Wha t Chekho v Though t o f It' , English Review 8 , 1911 , pp. 256-66 . Gottlieb, Vera , Why This Farce?, New Theatre Quarterly 27 , 7 , Augus t 1991 , pp.217-28

Hahn, Beverly , 'Chekhov' s The Cherry Orchard', Critical Review 16 , 1973 , pp. 56-72. . Hristic, Jova n '"Thinkin g wit h Chekhov" , th e Evidenc e o f Stanislavsky' s Note books', New Theatre Quarterly 42, 11, May 1995, pp. 175-83. 'Time i n Chekhov : th e Inexorabl e an d th e Ironic' , New Theatre Quarterly 3, August 1985, pp. 271-82. Kramer, Kar l D. , 'Chekho v a t th e En d o f th e Eighties , Th e Questio n o f Identity' , Etudes Slaves et Est-Europeennes 11 , 1966, pp. 3-18 . Lahr, John , 'Pinte r an d Chekhov , Th e Bon d o f Naturalism' , Drama Review 13 , 1968, pp. 137-45. Mann, Thomas, 'Anton Chekhov', Mainstream 12 , 1959, pp. 2-21. McDonald, Jan , 'Productio n o f Chekhov' s Play s i n Britai n Befor e 1914' , Theatre Notebook 34 , 1980, pp. 25-36 . Merlin, Bella , 'Whic h Cam e First : th e Syste m o r The Seagull?', New Theatre Quarterly 59, August 1999, pp. 218-27. Saint-Denis, Michel , 'Chekho v an d th e Moder n Stage' , Drama Survey 3 , 1965 , pp. 77- 81. Senelick, Laurence , 'Lake-Shor e Bohemia , The Seagull's Theatrica l Context' , Educational Theatre Journal 29, 1977, pp. 199-213. Shakh-Azizova, Tatiana , ' A Russia n Hamlet , Ivanov an d Hi s Age' , Soviet Literature, 1980, pp. 157-63. Shevtsova, Maria, 'Resistanc e an d Resilience: an Overview of the Maly Theatre of St Petersburg', New Theatre Quarterly 52, November 1997 , pp. 299-317. 'Drowning in Dixie: The Maly Drama Theatre Plays Chekhov Untitled', Theatre Forum 13, 1998, pp. 46-53 . Silverstein, Norman , 'Chekhov' s Comi c Spiri t an d The Cherry Orchard', Modern Drama 1, 2, September 1958, pp. 91-100. Smith, J. Oates , 'Chekho v an d th e "Theate r o f th e Absurd", Bucknell Review 14, 1966, pp. 44-58. 278 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPH Y

States, Bert O., 'Chekhov's Dramatic Strategy', Yale Review 56, 1967, pp. 212-24 . Styan, J. L., 'Th e Idea o f a Definitive Production , Chekho v In and Ou t o f Period' , Comparative Drama 4, 1970, pp. 177-96 . 'The Delicate Balance, Audience Ambivalence in the Comedy of Shakespeare and Chekhov', Costerus 2, 1972, pp. 159-84 . Szewcow, Maria (Shertsova , Maria), 'Anatoli j Efro s direct s Chekhov' s The Cherry Orchard and Gogol's The Marriage, Theatre Quarterly, 26, 1977, pp. 34-46. Tulloch, J. , T . Borvill an d Andre w Hood , 'Re-inhabitin g "The Cherry Orchard", Class and History in Performing Chekhov' , New Theatre Quarterly 52, Vol 13, November 1997 , pp. 318-28. Vickers, Sylvi a 'Space , Genr e an d Methodolog y i n Ma x Stafford-Clark' s Tourin g Production o f Chekhov' s Three Sisters', New Theatre Quarterly 57 , 15 , February 1999 , pp. 45-57. Wilson, Edmund , 'Seein g Chekho v Plain' , New Yorker 22 , Novembe r 1952 , pp. 180-98 . Winner, Thomas G., 'The Chekhov Centennial Productions in the Moscow Theatres', Slavic and East European Journal 5, i96i,pp. 255-62 .

279 Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

INDEX OF WORKS BY CHEKHOV

Aga®a 4, 9 Anna on My Neck 149±50 Anniversary, The (see also Jubilee) 58, 66, 166, 236 Ariadna 205, 207 At a Country House 51 At Dusk 10 August (®lm adaptation of Uncle Vanya directed by Anthony Hopkins ± see also Uncle Vanya) 158±9

Conspirator, The 9

Bear, The/The Boor 7, 10, 57±8, 59, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 68 n.9, 100 n.3, 162, 163, 166 Belated Blossom/Late Blossoms/The Flowers are Late 7, 112, 149 Big Volodia and Little Volodia 210 Bishop, The 9, 13, 204 Black Monk, The 7, 26, 208 Bride, The/The FianceÂe/The Marrigeable Girl 24, 211 Burbot, The 208 Cases of Mania Grandioza 20 Chameleon/A 6, 8, 150 Children 9 Cherry Orchard, The xxii (illus.), xxx, xxxiii, 7, 13, 14, 18, 22, 24±5, 29, 30, 31, 55, 55 n.3, 59, 60, 62, 63±4, 65, 66, 68 ns.5, 9 and 11, 69 n.19, 91, 93, 95, 97, 104, 108, 109 n.6, 110 n.10, 111±119, 120 n.22, 121, 123, 125, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132 ns.5 and 6, 133 ns.11 and 12, 134, 136, 138, 142, 143 (illus.), 144, 145±6, 156, 162, 165, 166, 168, 171, 173, 179, 187±9, 203, 204, 208, 211±4, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 224, 225, 226 ns.4, 6, 230, 231, 232, 233, 236, 238 ns.21, 27 Chorus Girl, The 208 Complaints Book, The 7

Daughter of Albion, The 149, ®lm, and see also Appendix 1 Dark Eyes (®lm) 154 and see Appendix 3 Dead Body, A 9 Death of a Clerk, The /Death of a Petty Of®cial 8, 150 Disturbing the Balance 211 Don Juan (in the Russian Manner) (see also Platonov) 48 Duel, The 9, 10, 206, 208, 211 Dreary Story, A 7, 23, 204, 205, 206, 208, 209 Easter Eve 9 Enemies, The 9 Fat and Thin 7, 8 Fatherlessness (see also Platonov) 43, 47, 163 Fireworks on the James (see also Platonov) 48 Fortune 205, 212 Fragments/Fragments of Moscow Life (Oskolki) 6, 9, 228 Gloomy People 10 Grasshopper, The 153, 207 Gusev 4, 10 Hard Case, A/The Man in a Case 20, 150 (®lm by Annensky), 210, see also Appendices 1 and 3 Horse's Name, A 7 House with the Mezzanine, The /The Artist's Story 7, 9, 23, 211 Illegal 149, ®lm, and see also Appendices 1 and 3

280

index of works by chekhov In Autumn 58 Incident in Practice, An 208 In Exile 10 In the Cart 11 In the Home-Stead 21 In the Ravine/In the Hollow 11, 13, 21, 27, 210, 214 Ionytch/Ionych/In the Town of S/Doctor Startsev 7, 153, 203, 204, 210, 213 Island of Sakhalin, The /The Island, A Journey to Sakhalin 10, 15 n.13, 21 Ivanov, xiii, 7, 9, 11, 31, 33±5, 39 n.12, 44, 50, 70±8, 109 n.6, 111, 121, 142, 144, 146, 162±4, 166, 167, 170, 173, 176, 178, 180, 190 n.2, 204, 205, 206, 209, 230, 234, see also Appendix 4, 263 Jubilee (see also The Anniversary) 58, 66, 166, 236 Kashtanka (®lm ± see also Rusty) 149 Kiss, The 9, 210 Lady with a Little Dog, A/The 7, 13, 23, 50, 152±3, 154, 206, 209, ®lm ± see also Appendix 3 Living Chattel, A 7 Man Friend, A 208 Means of Sobering Up, A 208 Misery 23 Mistress, The 4 `In Moscow' Moscow Hamlet, The 234 Motley Tales 9, 10 Murder, The 4, 10, 21 My Life/A Provincial Life 23, 51, 54, 121, 204, 209, 211 Neighbours 207 New Villa 11 Night Before the Trial, The 59 Nightmare, A 9 Of®ce for the Dead 9 On Christmas Night 4 On Of®cial Business 19, 209, 214 On the Harmfulness of Tobacco/Smoking is Bad for You 58, 63, 65, 66, 230, 236 On the High Road 18, 58, 59 On the Way 18 Panpipes 205, 206, 208 Patch 4 Peasants 7, 11, 22, 214

Peasant Women 10 Piano (version by Trevor Grif®ths of Platonov based on the original ®lm An Un®nished Piece for Mechanical Piano) 43, 53±55 Platonov (also known as Fatherlessness, A Play Without a Title, Ce fou de Platonov, Der unnuÈtzige Mensch Platonoff ± That Useless Person Platonov, Don Juan (in the Russian Manner)) x, 43±55, 55 n.3, 59, 68±9 n.16, 70, 111, 121, 123, 124, 127, 131, 132 n.4, 155±6, 163, 209, 238 n.19 (®lm, An Un®nished Piece for Mechanical Piano, see Appendix 3) Plays 10 Practical Jokes 23 Proposal, The 10, 58, 60, 62, 65, 66, 68 n.9, 166 Provincial life, A (see also My Life) 121 The Reluctant Tragedian (see also A Tragic Role) 58 Romance of the Double Bass 149 Rothschild's Violin 7 Russian Master, The 24, 51 Rusty (Kashtanka ± ®lm) 4, 149 Seagull, The xiii, xiv, xxx, xxxiii, 11, 12, 19, 23, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35±6, 40 n.14, 49, 50, 62, 65, 66, 68 n.5, 72, 75, 80±90, 102, 109 n.6, 111, 116, 121, 122, 123, 125, 130, 131, 132 (illus.), 133 ns. 8 and 11, 134, 137±40, 142, 144, 145, 146, 153±4, ®lms, 157, 162, 164, 166, 167, 168, 171, 172, 174, 176, 180±2, 189, 205, 206±9, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 231, 232, 235, see also Appendix 4, 264, 265 (illus.) Sergeant Prishibeyev 20 Shooting Party, The 150, 151, 152, 158, and see Appendix 3 Short Stories 10 Slough, The 204, 205 Sorrow 7 Steppe, The 4, 7, 10, 11, 18, 22, 205, 209, 212 Student, The 4 Swan Song 57, 58, 63, 64±5, 67, 68 ns.9 and 11, 121, 126 Tatyana Repina 58, 233, 234 Terror 4 Things Most Frequently Encountered in Novels, Stories and Other Such Things 61, 64

281

index of works by chekhov Three Sisters xiii, 13, 18±9, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 38 (illus.), 44, 45, 49, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 68 ns.5 and 9, 89, 91, 94, 101±8, 109 ns.5, 6, 7 and 8, 110 n.9, 111, 116, 121, 122, 125, 128, 130, 131, 133 n.11, 134, 137, 140, 141, 144, 145, 146, 153, 156, 157, 165, 166, 167, 168, 171, 173, 174, 178, 184±7, 204, 209, 210, 211, 217, 219, 220, 221, 222, 224, 225, 230, 231, 233, 235, and for ®lms see Appendix 3 Three Years 23, 24, 26, 51, 236, 243 Tragic Role, A (see also The Reluctant Tragedian) 58, 63, 65, 66 Tumbleweed 204, 208, 212 29th June 4 Uncle Vanya/Vania (see also August) xxxii, 22±3, 29, 30, 31, 32, 36±7, 44, 52, 58, 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 67, 89, 91±100, 106, 107, 108, 109 n.6, 111, 116, 121, 122, 126, 127, 128, 130, 131, 132 n.5, 133 ns.10 and 11, 134, 135, 136, 140, 142,

154, 157, 158, 160, 164, 166, 167, 169,173, 182±3, 189, 203, 204, 206, 217, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 225, 230, 231, 232, 236, 237, and for ®lms see Appendix 3 Unwanted Victory, An 112 Verochka 203, 213, 242 Visit to Friends, A 112, 113, 213, 214 Volodia 209, 242 Wallet, The 208 Ward No. 6 7, 10, 20, 173, 208 Wedding, The 58, 61, 62, 63, 68 n.11, 131, 166, 178 Wild Honey (version of Platonov by Michael Frayn) 46, 50, 55, 121, 123, 127, 132 n.4, 156 Witch, The 18 Wolf 207 Woman's Kingdom, A 208 Wood-Demon, The (The Wood Goblin) 44, 107, 108, 121, 164, 203, 204, 205±6, 207, 209

282

GENERAL INDEX

Abbey Theatre (Dublin) 83, 90 n.10, 189 Abramov Theatre (Moscow) 164 Academic Imperial Theatres 32, 92, 100 n.3; St Petersburg Imperial Theatre 176; Imperial Theatre Committee 203 Academy of Sciences 13, 15 n.11, 230 Actors' Company, The 102, 109 n.3, 121 Actors Studio, The 185 Adabashian, Alexander (see also Mikhalkov) 50, 52 Aesopian 189 Afghanistan war 171 Aksakov, Sergei 4, 14 n.4 Alexandrinsky Theatre/Imperial State Alexandrinskii Theatre (St Petersburg) 12, 163, 164, 175, 217 Alfreds, Mike xxxii, 121±5, 127±9, 131, 132 n.5, 186, 191 American Repertory Theatre 191 n.6 Anderson, Lindsay 181, 191 Andreyev, Leonid 6 Anglo-Ireland 80±3, 87, 88 Annensky, Isidor 150; The Man in the Case (®lm) 150 Antoine, Andre 70, 137 Appia, Adolphe 136, 139, 147, 147 n.7, 176 Aran Islands 86 Arbuzov, Aleksey 178, 190 n.4; Tanya (play) 190 n.4 Ardant, Fanny 157 Aronson, Arnold xii, xiv Art Nouveau 170 Arts Council 101, 102 Arts Theatre (Cambridge) 133 n.8 Artsybashev, Sergei 173 Ashmore, Basil 48 Asia Minor 3 Australia 55, 158 Avilova, Lidia 207

Ayckbourn, Alan 66, 235 Azov (region) 3 Babkino 9, 39 n.14, 113, 114, 213 Babochkin, Boris 167 `Back to Chekhov' Theatre Festival (St Petersburg) 173 Badenweiler 14, 54 Bakhtin, Mikhail 72 Baku 142 Balmashov, S. B. 118 Barker, Howard 179, 191 Barkhin, Sergei xxxii, 33, 142 Barnes Theatre (London) 184 Barthes, Roland 76, 78 n.5 Batalov, Alexei 152 Bates, Alan 154 BBC Radio 121 BDT, see Bolshoi Dramatic Theatre Beckett, Samuel xxxii, 57, 65, 67, 83, 141, 142, 179, 186, 189, 230, 234, 235; Waiting for Godot 65±6 Belgium 55 Belgrade Theatre (Coventry) 121 Bely, Andrey 187, 190 n.11, 191 Bene®t performances 57±58, 164 Berdyaev, N. A. 27 Bergman, Ingrid 149 Bergson, Henri 229, 237 n.6; Laughter (an essay) 229 Berkovsky, N. 47, 56 n.8 Berlin 31, 144 Berliner Ensemble 101 Berlin SchaubuÈhne 186 Berlin Wall xxx Bertish, Suzanne 109 n.5 `Between Shakespeare and Chekhov' Festival 173 Billington, Michael 50

283

general index Black Sea 153 Blakemore, Michael 135, 158±9; Country Life (®lm) 158±9 Blakley, Claudie xiii, 132 (illus.) Blatchley, John 48 Blok, Alexander 24, 27, 28 Bobochkin, Boris 175 n.8 Bochum 181, 188 Bogolepov, Nikolai Parlovich (Russian Minister of Education) 118 Boleslavski, Richard 177, 191 Bolshoi Drama/Dramatic (Gorky) Theatre/ BDT (Leningrad/St Petersburg) 167, 171, 184, 189; see also Tovstonogov, 141 Bolshoi (Bolshoy) Dramatic Theatre (Moscow) 100 n.3, 141 Bondarchuk, Sergei 154 Booth, Connie 149 Booth, Wayne 151 Bordeaux Festival 48 Borgesian 151 Borovsky, David xxxii, 34, 142, Appendix 4, 263 Bouffes du Nord, Les (Paris) (see also Brook) 110 n.10, 148 n.27, 189 Brace Up ! (see also Wooster Group) 146, 187, 189 Brand, Phoebe 160 Braun, Edward 56 n.24 Brecht, Bertolt xxix, 109 n.8, 111, 116, 135, 147, 160, 161, 188, 234; Gestus 116, 117 Bristow, Eugene K. 84, 85, 87 British Film Institute 152 Broadway 159, 182, 183 BronteÈs 209 Brook, Peter (see also Les Bouffes du Nord) xxii, xxxiii, 93, 104, 109 n.2, 110 n.10, 145±6, 148 n.27, 188±9, 191, 234, 235, 238 ns.20, 23; The Empty Space 234±5 Brooklyn Academy of Music 38 (illus.), 145 BuÈchner, Georg 77, 78±9 n.6; Woyzeck 76±77, 78±9 n.6 Budberg, Moura 153, 154 Bulgakov, Leo 177, 191 Bulgakov, Mikhail 172 Bunin, Ivan 13 Burton, Kate 159 Caedmon Production 121 Cage, John 139 Cain, James M. 152 Cambridge Theatre (London) 109 n.4, 186 Cannes 154, 155

Carer, Laura 5 Caribbean 186 Catholic 82, 83 Caucasus 17 Caylor, Rose 182, 192 Celtic 84, 86, 189 Central Army Theatre ± see Theatre of the Red Army, Teatr na Krasnoy Presne, (Moscow), 91, 168, 169, 173 Cercle des Escholiers 70 Cervantes, Miguel de 190 n.4 Chaikin, Joseph 181 Chairman Mao Tse Tung 100 Chaliapin, Fyodor/Feodor 13, 26 Chambers, Colin 90 n.13 Chamot, A.E. 151 Chaplin, Charlie 100 Chekhov, Alexander (Anton's brother) 61 Chekhov, Michael (Anton's nephew) 4, 39 n.7, 149 Chekhov, Nicholas/Nikolai (Anton's elder brother) 14 n.3, 39 n.14 Chekhov, Pavel Yegorovich (Anton's father) 3, 4, 5, 6 Chekhova, Maria (Anton's sister) 3, 11, 114 Chekhova, Olga (Anton's niece) 149 Chichester Festival Theatre (England) 140, 183 Chinatown 186 Chopin, Frederic 51 Christie, Agatha 151; The Murder of Roger Ackroyd (novel and ®lm) 151 Churchill, Winston 100 Circle-in-the-Square Theatre (New York) 183 Ciulei, Liviu 181, 192 Ciulli, Roberto 179, 182, 192 Civil War (Russia) 31 Clair, Rene 149; Un Chapeau de paille d'Italie (®lm) 149 Clark, Antony 110 n.16 Clayburgh, James 146 Cleese, John 149 Closer (play by Patrick Marber ± see also Marber) 129, 133 n.9 Clurman, Harold 178, 192 Cold War xxviii Cole, David 189 Cologne 144 commedia dell'arte 59, 60 Conklin, John 144 Cornwell, Charlotte 49 Cortese, Valentina 176 Cottrell, Richard 103, 109 n.5, 122

284

general index Countess Platova 4 Craig, Edward Gordon 139, 144, 147, 148 n.19, 176 Crimea 12, 17, 19, 25 Crown Civil Service 81 Crucible Theatre (Shef®eld) 121 Czech xiv, 48, 179, 264 Dale, Janet 109 n.5 Daniels, Ron 190 n.6 Dark Eyes (®lm ± see also Mikhalkov) 154±5 Darkness at Noon (novel by Arthur Koestler) 157 Darnell, Linda 152 Dart, Paul 121 Darwin, Charles 6, 206 Davies, Howard 52, 55 Davis, Miles 160 Davydov, Vladimir 206 Decadent movement 114, 170 De Joubainville 86 Demidova, Alla 170, 176, 192 Devil's Island 15 ns.12 and 13, 230 Devine, George 48 Devrient, Ludwig 176 Dickens, Charles 182, 229; Nicholas Nickleby 182 Dillane, Stephen 133 n.10 Divadlo za Branou (Theatre behind the Gates ± Prague) 179, 180, 185 Dmitriev, Vladimir 138 Dobronravov, Boris 32, 167 Dodin, Lev 55, 109 n.7; and see Maly Theatre (MDT), St Petersburg 55 Dolgorukov (Russian landowning family) 112 Don Juan 47, 48 Don Quixote, see Turgenev Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, M., 8, 22, 55, 98, 110 n.8, 128; Crime and Punishment 109±10 n.8 Dragon¯y, The 6 Dreyfus Affair/Case 10, 15 n.11 Dreyfus, Alfred 15 n.12, 230 Duke of Saxe-Meiningen 137 Dumas, Alexandre 233; The Lady of the Camellias 233 DuÈsseldorf 188 East Germany (see also Germany) 101, 179 Eastern Europe xxix, 178, 179 Eastern Front 150 Edinburgh Festival 121

Efremov, Oleg (see also Yefremov) 181, 192 Efros, Anatoly xxxiii, 109 n.8, 124, 132±3 n.6, 133 n.12, 141, 168, 169±72, 175 n.11, 176, 181, 185, 189, 192 Efros, Yevdokia 11 Ehrenburg, Ilya 39 n.10 Eiffel Tower 208 Einstein, Albert 100 Emancipation Act (Russia ± 1861) 47, 112 Et Cetera Theatre (Moscow) 173 Expressionism 146 Eyre, Richard xxxii, 56 n.23, 188, 193 farce 46, 49±50, 58, 59, 62, 66±7, 80, 126, 127, 170, 183, 188, 228, 230, 235, 236, 237 Farquhar, George 83 Faulkner, William 151; Pylon 151 Faust 187 Fehling, JuÈrgen 178 Feydeau, Georges 46, 66, 67, 228, 235, 236 Figes, Orlando 118, 119 First International Chekhov Theatre Festival 173 `Flight of the Seagull' Festival, The 174 Fort, Paul 136 `fourth wall' 29, 131, 134, 136, 145 Fox, Kerry 158 Fragments of Moscow Life (Oskolki) 6, 9, 228 France 150, 156, 182, 213, 229 Frayn, Michael 46, 49, 50, 66, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 121, 122, 123, 124, 132 n.4, 156, 235, 236; Clockwise 236; Noises Off 236; Wild Honey 46, 50, 55, 121, 123, 127, 132 n.4, 156 French, Philip xxvii Flop-Miller, Rene 48 Gaideburov, Pavel 177, 193 Garshin, Vsevolod 12 Gaynes, George 160 Gems, Pam 121, 122 Genoa 86 Georgia 109 n.7, 186 Gerasimov, Sergei 150 Germany (see also East and West Germany) 14, 48, 55, 149, 150, 151, 178, 182 Gielgud, John 190 n.2 Giles, David 121 Gill, Peter xxxii, 121 Gish, Lillian 182±3

285

general index GITIS (State Institute of Theatre Arts, Soviet/ Russian State Theatre School) 39 n.7, 109 n.7 Glagolin, Boris 149 Glittenberg, Rolf 144, 145 Gogol, Nikolai 12, 19, 27, 55, 133 n.6, 229±30; The Marriage 133 n.6; The Government Inspector xx Goldsmith, Oliver 83 Golino, Valeria 157 Golitsyn (Russian landowning family) 112 Golumb, Harai xxxiii Goncharov, Ivan 8 Gorbachev, Mikhail xxix, 36, 37, 186 Gorky, Maxim 12, 13, 15 n.11, 25, 54, 59, 136, 149, 179, 189, 230; The Song of the Stormy-Petrel 25 Gorky Theatre, Leningrad, see BDT (Bolshoi Drama Theatre) (St Petersburg) Gottlieb, Vera 39 n.12, 68 ns. 4, 6 and 15, 109 n.7, 175 n.7, 238 n.24 Grainger, Gawn 159 Greeks/Greek 3, 4, 11, 20, 89, 146 Gregory, Andre 145, 157, 159, 160, 181, 183, 193 Grif®ths, Trevor xxxii, 52±5, 119, 179, 188, 193, 234, 238 n.21; Piano (see also Piano and Mikhalkov) 43, 53±55 Grigorovich, Dimitri 9, 18, 20 Gromov, Mikhail 46±7, 50 Grossman, Vasily xxxi, 175 n.14; Life and Fate (novel) 175 n.14 Group Theatre, The 178 Grosz, George 188 Grotowski, Jerzy, Towards a Poor Theatre 110 n.11 Grzegorzewski, Jerzy 183, 193 Guardian, The 50 Gunter, John 132 n.4 Guthrie, Tyrone 187, 193

Heifetz, Leonid xxvii, xxviii, xxx, xxxi, 109 n.8, 169, 237 Hemingway, Ernest 6 Hermann, Karl Ernst 144 Heydrich, Reinhard 150 Hilpert, Heinz 178 Hingley, Ronald 121, 238 ns.13, 14, 19, 22, 27 Hitchcock, Alfred 149; Spellbound (®lm) 149 Hitler, Adolf 100, 132 n.3 Hoffman, Dustin 161 Holland 150 Hollywood 150, 151, 154, 182 Hollywood Production Code/Hays Of®ce Code 152, 161 n.6 Hopkins, Anthony 159; August (®lm) 158±9 Horton, Edward Everett 151 Howard, Pamela xxxii Hungary 157, 179 Hyde Park (London) 125

Hamburg 144 Hamlet (see also Shakespeare) xx, 34, 39 ns.11 and.12, 75, 170, 175 n.16, 176, 190 n.6, 208, 213, 234, 237 Hansen, Kai 149 Hargreaves, John 158 Harris, Jed 182, 193 Harrison, Rex 48 Hartford Stage Company (USA) 144 Hauptmann, Gerhart 139 Hawthorne, Nigel 158 Heifetz, Joseph/Josef 50, 152±3, 154

Jaffrey, Madhur 160 Jaglom, Henry 157; Last Summer in the Hamptons (®lm) 157 Japan 15 n.13, 25, 55, 142, 179, 182 Jews 44, 47, 15 n.12, 150, 204±5, 230; `pale of settlement' 204 Jones, Sidney 210; The Geisha (operetta) 209

Ibsen, Henrik xxix, 131, 133 n.14, 134, 137, 156, 178, 229, 237 n.5; An Enemy of the People 133 n.14, 156; A Doll's House 134; Letter in Rhyme 229 Innes-Hopkins, Robert xiii, 121, 132 (illus.) Ionesco, EugeÁne 235±6, 237, 238 ns.25, 26, 28; AmeÂdeÂe ± Or How to Get Rid of It 237; The Chairs 236; `Experience of the Theatre' (an essay) 235, 238 nn.25, 26 Ireland xxviii, 80±4, Irish 84, 86, 123, 182, 189 Irish Free State 83 Irondale Ensemble (New York) 183 Israel 55 Istanbul 96 Istanbul Municipal Theatre 91 Italy 3 Itinerant Theatre, 177, and see Gaideburov Ivanov, Lev 153

Kachalov, Vasily 184, 194, 190 n.2 Kalima, Eino 177, 193 Kalmykia 170, 175 n.15 Kaluga 10

286

general index Kalyagin, Alexander 155 Kamerny (Chamber) Theatre (Moscow) 138, 167, 175 n.7, 181, see also Tairov Kanamori, Kaoru 142 Karasik, Yuli 154 Karge, Manfred 188, 193 Kazan 10 Kean, Edmund 176 Keane, Molly 83 Kedrov, Michael 32 Kedrova, Lila 125, 133 n.8 Kelly, Jude xiii, 121, 131, 132 (illus.) Kenny, Sean 140 Kharkov 113, 119±20 n.8, 151, 205, 206 Kilroy, Thomas xxviii, xxx, 123 Kindinov, Y. 35 Kirgizia 91 Kiselev, Alexei and Maria 113 Kiseliov family 213 Kitaev, Mart 142 Knebel, Maria 32, 39 n.7, 167, 168, 189, 190 n.14, 194 Knipper-Chekhova/Knipper, Olga Leonardovna (Chekhov's wife) 13, 30, 69 n.19, 96, 118, 120 n.17, 130, 133 n.11, 187, 194 Knyazhi 4 Kochergin, Eduard 142 Kokkos, Yannis xiv, xxxiii, 142, 146; see also Appendix 4 Kolyagin, Mikhail 173 Komisarjevsky, Theodor 177, 179, 180, 184, 194 Komissarzhevskaya, Vera 164±5, 174±5 n.2, 207 Konchalovsky, Andrei 154 Koonen, Alisa (see also Tairov) 167, 175 n.7, 181 Korolenko, Vladimir 12, 13, 15 n.11, 230 Korovin, Konstantin 26 Korsh, Fyodor Adamovich 206 Korsh Theatre (Moscow) 100 n.3, 162 Kostroma 10 Kozintsev, Gregori 39 n.11, 175 n.16 Kramskoy, Ivan Nikolayevich 138 Kravtsov, Petya 4 KrejcÆa, Otomar xxxii, 139, 179, 180, 181, 185, 186, 188, 189, 195; see also Appendix 4, 264 Krushchev, Nikita 39 n.10 Kupal Theatre (Minsk) 140 Kuprin, Alexander Ivanovich 13, 28 n.16, 60 Kurilko, Mikhail 140

Labiche, EugeÁne-Marin 66, 67, 228, 236 Lady Gregory 83 Lai, Francis 155 Lamos, Mark 144 Lampe, Jutta 176, 195 Lan, David 133 n.10 Lanchester, Elsa 187 Land War (Ireland) 82 Lang, Robert 48 Langhoff, Matthias 179, 188 `laughter through tears' 60±1, 125 Laughton, Charles 187, 195 Lavrova, Tatiana 35 Lecocq, Alexandre Charles 5 LeCompte, Elizabeth 146, 187, 195 Le Gallienne, Eva 177, 195 Lehar, Franz 5 Lenin, Vladimir Ilych 20, 26 Lenkom Theatre (Leningrad) 172 Lenkom Theatre/Lenin Komsomol Theatre (Moscow) 34, 168, 170, 174, 181 Lensky, Alexander 203 Leonidov, Leonid Mironovich 116, 120 n.17 Leonov, Yevgeny/Evgeny 34, 174, 190 n.2 Leontiev-Scheglov, Ivan 11 Lermontov, Mikhail 229 Leskov, Nikolai 20 Leykin, Nikolai 237 n.1 Levental, Valery xxxii, 35, 37, 38 (illus.), 133 n.12, 142, see also Appendix 4, 264 Levitan, Isaak xiv, 11, 26, 37, 39 n.14; Hay-Ricks (painting) 26 Leyda, Jay 150, 161 n.2 Lider, Daniil 140, 142 Lidice 150 Lincoln Center (New York) 142 Lindfors, Viveca 157 Lintvariovs 205 Lipetsk 170 Liszt, Franz 5, 155 Litovtseva, Nina Nikolayevna 32 Livanov, Boris 33, 171, 181, 195 Lobanov, Andrey 187, 195 Loncraine, Richard 132 n.3 Long Island 157 Loquasto, Santa xiii, xxxii, 142, 143 (illus.) Lord Byron 155 Lotianou, Emi 158 Lubitsch, Ernst 152; Ninotchka (®lm) 152 LugneÂ-Poe, AureÂlien 70 LukaÂcs, Georg 111

287

general index Lukats, Andor 157; Three Sisters (®lm) 157, see Appendix 3 Lumet, Sidney 153 Lyons, F.S.L. 81 Lyric Theatre (Hammersmith) 110 ns.8 and 9 Lyttelton Theatre, RNT (London) 108 Lyubimov, Yuri/Yury xxxii, 103, 109±10 n.8, 145, 171, 175 n.19, 185, 195 Madeira 3 Maeterlinck, Maurice 115, 134 Magarshack, David 232, 238 n.8 Magic Flute, The 187 Magnitogorsk 174 Majestic Theatre (Brooklyn) 145 Makaroff, Dmitri 48 Malaya Bronnaya Theatre (Moscow Drama Theatre) 141, 168, 171, 185 Malchenko, Tatyana 153 Malle, Louis 156, 159±60, 183, 196; Lift to the Scaffold (®lm) 160; Milou en Mai (®lm) 156; My Dinner with Andre (®lm) 159; Vanya on 42nd Street (®lm) 159±61, 183 Maly Theatre (Moscow) 43, 100 n.3, 163, 167, 174 Maly Theatre (St Petersburg) (MDT) 55, see also Dodin Mamet, David 159, 183, 196 Mandelshtam, Osip 100, 182, 190 n.7 Mangano, Silvana 155 Marber, Patrick (see also Closer) 133 n.9 Marinsky Palace, St Petersburg 118 Martin-Davies, Ashley xiii, see also Appendix 2, 257 Marx, Adolf 209 Marxist 111, 188 Mason, James 153 Mastroianni, Marcello 154, 155 Mathias, Sean 121 Maupassant, Guy de 208; Bel-ami 208; Boule de Suif 208; Le Horla 208; Sur l'eau 208 May, Val 48 Mayakovsky Theatre (Moscow) 172 Mayakovsky, Vladimir 30, 149 McKellen, Sir Ian xiii, xxxiii, xxx, xxxi, 49, 102±3, 132 (illus.), 133 n.14; Richard III (®lm) 132 n.3 McTeer, Janet 121 Mediterranean 3 Melikhovo 11, 12, 19, 21, 40 n. 14, 111, 113 melodrama xxxii, 44, 45, 49, 50, 52, 58, 67, 123, 150, 177, 180, 205, 208, 226, 232, 233

Meredith, George 229, 237 n.6; An Essay on Comedy 229 Method, The 109 n.6, 185 Meyerhold, Vsevolod 29, 66, 68 n.15, 78, 138, 166, 175 n.6, 177, 178, 187, 196; 33 Swoons (33 Fainting Fits) 66, 68 n.15, 166 MGM (Metro Goldwyn Mayer) 150 Mielziner, Jo 135 Mikhailovsky, Nikolai 7, 11 Mikhalkov, Nikita 50, 52, 53, 131, 154±6, see also Appendix 3; Burnt by the Sun (®lm) 156; Dark Eyes (®lm) 154±5; An Un®nished Piece for Mechanical Piano (®lm based on Platonov ± see also Grif®ths) 50±2, 131, 155±6, see also Appendix 3 Milan 48, 157, 187 Miles, Patrick xxxiii Miller, Jonathan (Dr) 102, 109 n.4, 181, 186, 196 Mironov, Andrey 171 Mitchell, Julian 159 Mitchell, Katie 133 n.10 Mizinova, Lidia 11, 207 Mochalov, Pavel 176, 196 modernism 177, 226 MolieÁre (see also Tartuffe) 58, 59 Moore, George 82 Moore, Julianne 160 Morahan, Christopher 49, 121, 132 n.4 Morgan, Rhian 159 Moscow 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27±8 n.11, 29, 30, 31, 43, 54, 82, 91, 105, 113, 123, 131, 137, 141, 151, 153, 154, 156, 158, 162, 163, 167, 171, 181, 185, 189, 204, 221, 222, 228, 231, 234, 235; Moscow University 6 Moscow Art Theatre (MAT/MKhT/MKhAT) xxix, 11, 12, 13, 16 n.16, 29±40, 38 (illus), 43, 78, 92, 93, 96, 100 n.3, 109 n.6, 114, 133 n.11, 134, 135, 140, 142, 147, 165, 166, 167, 169±70, 171, 172, 174, 176, 181, 184, 187, 203, 209, 217, see also Appendix 3, 263, 264; Prague Group of MAT 177; Studios 177; Third Studio 166 Moscow Youth Theatre/Young People's Theatre (TYuZ) 173, 180 Mos®lm 50 Moshinsky, Elijah 144 MuÈlheim 182 Murnau, F.W. 149; Schloss VogeloÈd (®lm) 149

288

general index Mussolini, Benito 100 Myagkov, A. 35 Nabakov, Vladimir 55 Nadson, S. Ia. 114 Napier, John 107, 109 n.5, 110 n.12 Narodni Divadlo (National Theatre ± Prague) 181, 184 nastroenie (atmosphere/mood) 134, 146, 180 nationalism 10, 87 National Theatre (London ± see also Royal National Theatre) 49, 50, 121, 132 n.4, 140, 154, 156 naturalism 29, 61, 65, 70, 72, 76, 78, 92, 104, 105, 109 n.6, 124, 134, 135, 136, 139, 140, 177, 178, 182, 183, 186, 216, 217, 220, 223±6 Neher, Casper 135 Neill, Sam 158 Nekrasov, Nikolai 6, 114, 213±14, 215 n.10 Nekrosius, Eimuntas 183, 186, 196 Nelson, Richard 108, 110 n.14 Nemirovich-Danchenko, Vladimir 11, 26, 29, 31, 32, 57, 64, 109 n.6, 178, 184, 187, 196, 203, 231±2, 238 n.10 Nevinny, Vyacheslav 33, 35 New Amsterdam Theatre (New York) 159±60 New Theatre (London) 180, 183 New Time (Novoye vremya ± newspaper owned by A.S. Suvorin) 9, 15 n.11, 59 New York Shakespeare Festival xiii, 143 (illus.) New Zealand 55, 183 Newcastle 101 Nice 213 Nichols, Mike 183 Nikitsky Gates Theatre (Moscow) 173 Nikolaev 187 Nizhni Novgorod 18 Nottingham Playhouse (Nottingham) 48, 58 n.23, 188 Novocherkassk 10 Nunn, Trevor xxviii, xxix, xxx, xxxi, 121, 131, 133 n.14, 186 Obolensky (Russian landowning family) 112 Obolensky, Chloe 110 n.10, 146 Offenbach, Jacques 5 Old Vic (London) 187 Olivier, Laurence 140, 153±4, 156, 160, 183, 197; Henry V (®lm) 160

O'Neill, Eugene 153; A Long Day's Journey into Night 153 Ophelia (from Hamlet) 213 Oporkov, Gennadi 172 Oscars (Award Ceremony) 155, 156 Ostroumov, Aleksei 6 Ostrovsky, Alexander 92 Other Place, The (Stratford-upon-Avon, England ± see also Stratford) 109 n.5, 183 Out of Joint (theatre company) 110 n.9 Paris xxx, 86, 117, 120 n.22, 178, 180, 181, 185, 219, 224, 265 Pasternak, Boris 30 Pavis, Patrice xxviii, 226 n.2 Pavlowa, Tatiana 187, 197 Peace, Richard 227 n.11 Peasants' Bank 112 Peck, Gregory 149 Pennsylvania 186 Perestroika 172, 173 Performing Garage, New York 146 Perm 19 Peter, John 55 Peter the Great 14 n.4 Petherbridge, Edward 109 n.5 Petrov, Nikolai 113 Phillips, Leslie 159 Piano (see also Grif®ths) 43, 53±5 Piccoli, Michel 156 Piccolo Teatro di Milano (Milan) 179, 188 Pine, Larry 160, 161 Pinero, Arthur Wing 66, 233; The Magistrate 66 Pinter, Harold xxx, xxxii, 57, 135 Pintilie, Lucian 185 Pirandello, Luigi 160 Pitcher, Harvey xxxiii PitoeÈff, Georges xxxii, 177, 179, 180, 184, 197 Platonov, Andrei 172 Plautus, Titus Maccius 59, 60 Playhouse Theatre (London) 108, 110 n.16 `Playing Chekhov Festival' 173 Plekhanov, Georgi Valentinovich 26 Plowright, Joan 154 Pluchek, Valentin 171 Pobedonotsev, Konstantin 19 Pogrebnichko, Yury 180, 182, 186 Pokrovka Theatre (Moscow) 173 Poland 91, 179 Police Academy (®lm) 160±1 Polonsky, Yakov 57, 59

289

general index Polotskaya, Emma xxvii, xxviii Poltava 113 `poor theatre' 104, 110 n.11 Popov, Andrei 34, 35, 36 postmodernism 55, 139, 146, 151, 180 Potapenko, Ignaty 11, 207 Prague 33, 48, 179, 184, 264 Prague Spring 39 n.10 Preobrazhenskaya, Olga 149; Kashtanka (®lm ± see also Rusty) 149 Pre-Raphaelite 184 Prishvin, Mikhail 4, 14 n.4 Protazanov, Yakov 149; Ranks and People (®lm ± version of, and see also Anna on My Neck) 149 Protestant 82 Proust, Marcel 189 Provincetown Playhouse (Massachusetts) 48 Prudkin, Mark 35 Psacharopoulos, Nikos 183, 197 Public Theatre (New York) 145 Purnell, Louise 154 Pushkin, Alexander 23, 180, 229; The Bronze Horseman 23 Pushkin Prize 10 Pushkin Theatre (Moscow) 167 Pushkin Theatre (Pskov) 48 Queen's Theatre (London) 184, 186 Quillard, Pierre 136 Rabb, Ellis 181 Rakhmaninov, Sergei 13, 26 Ramsay, Peggy 88, 90 n.13 Ratcliffe, Michael 50 Ratushinskaya, Irena 15 n.13 Ray, Satyajit 156; Days and Nights in the Forest (®lm) 156 Rayevsky, I.M. 33 Ray®eld, Donald xxvii, xxviii, 115, 120 n.22, 227 n.10 realism 53, 64, 89, 136, 147 n.7, 148 n.20, 149, 179, 181, 190 n.4, 216, 217, 220, 223±6, 229 Redgrave, Michael 183 Redgrave, Vanessa 153 Reinhardt, Max 176, 178 Remizova, Alexandra 48 Repin, Ilya 20 Revel 10 Richard, Emily 109 n.5 Richardson, Ralph 183, 197 Robards Jr., Jason 161

Roberts, Rachel 48 Robinson, Andrew 156; Satyajit Ray: The Inner Eye (critical work) 156 Romanian 179, 181 Romanian National Theatre 143 (illus.) Romanticism 92, 136, 146, 147 n.7 Rome 48 Roosevelt, Franklin D. 100 Rose, JuÈrgen 144 Rostovstev, Ivan 177, 197 `rough theatre' 101, 104, 107, see also Brook Royal Court Theatre (London) 48, 80, 110 n.9, 154 Royal National Theatre (London ± see also National Theatre) 52, 108, 132, 133 ns. 9 and 14 Royal Shakespeare Company 101, 121, 133 n.10, 183, 186 Rozov, Viktor 178, 190 n.4; Forever Alive (play) 190 n.4 Rozovsky, Mark 173 Ruman, Sig 152 Russian Revolution 25, 27, 31, 118, 151, 152, 154, 156, 176, 177, 182, 184, 187; October Revolution 30 Russian Thought (Russkaya mysl) 15 n.11 Sadovoye 23 Saint-Denis, Michel 184, 197 Sakhalin 4, 10, 14, 15 n.13, 17, 21, 22, 27, 229, 230 Salon Theatre (St Petersburg) 183 Salvini, Tommaso 5 Samsonov, Samson 153, 154 San Sebastian Film Festival 55 Sanders, George 152 de Sarasate, Pablo 5 Saratov 113 Sardou, Victorien 233 Sargent, John Singer 159 Satire Theatre (Moscow) 171 Savvina, Iya 152 Scacchi, Greta 157, 158 Scandinavia 55 Schmidt, Paul 146 Schopenhauer, Arthur 98, 128 Scott, George C. 183 Scribe, EugeÁne 233, 236 `Second International Chekhov Theatre Festival' 174 Senelick, Laurence xiii, xiv, xxviii, xxx Serban, Andrei xiii, xxxii, 142, 143 (illus.), 179, 182, 188, 189, 198

290

general index Serebrovsky, Vladimir 142 Serpukhov Sanitation (Health) Council 19 Seyler, Athene 187, 198 Shakespeare, William xxxii, 89, 103, 108, 121, 122, 123, 131, 132 n.3, 135, 162, 169, 171, 173, 174, 190 n.4, 208, 234; Hamlet 181, 190 n.6, 208, 234, 237; Richard III (®lm) 132 n.3; The Tempest 187; Twelfth Night 102 Shakh-Azizova, Tatiana xxvii, xxix, xxx, xxxi Shapiro, Adolph xxxii, 189, 198 Shared Experience Co. 186 Sharoff, Peter 177, 198 Shaw, George Bernard xxix, 83, 137, 149, 233, 236 Shawn, Wallace 159, 160, 161 Sher, Antony 121 Sheridan, Richard Brinsley 83 Sherman, Stuart 135; Chekhov 135 Shevtsova, Maria xxxiii, 133 n.6 Shiffrin, Nisson 140 Shiki Theatre Company of Tokyo 182 Shulman, Milton 48 Siberia 4, 10, 14, 17, 18, 114, 151, 170 Sierck, Detlef (aka Douglas Sirk) 150±2; Hitler's Madman (®lm) 150; Summer Storm (®lm) 150±2; Tarnished Angels (®lm) 151 Sierck, Detlef Claus (Douglas Sirk's son) 150 Signoret, Simone 153 Simbirsk 10 Simmons, James 152; Poems 1956±1986 152; `Summer Lighting' (poem) 152 Simon, Neil 179 Simonov Studio (Moscow) 187 Simov, Viktor 114, 135, 136, 138, 139, 146, 147, 147 n.4 Sklifasovsky, Nikolai 6 Sloman, Roger 121 Smeliansky, Anatoly xxvii, xxx Smirnov, Boris 167 Smith, Brooke 160 Smoktunovsky, Innokenty 34, 35, 39 n.11, 154, 170, 175 n.16, 190 n.2 Sobolev, Yury 3 Socialist Realism 32, 139, 179, 182, 190 n.4 Socrates 58 Sokolova, Lilia 121, 132 n.5 Sokolova, Lyubov 153 Solovei, Elena 155 Solovtsov, N. N. 58

Solyvov, Sergei 182, 198 Sophoclean 135 Sorokin, Konstantin 153 South Africa 55 Sovremennik (Contemporary) Theatre, (Moscow) 33, 35, 92, 171, 172, 181 Spain 3 Spall, Timothy 109 n.5, 121 Squat Theatre (New York) 186 St Petersburg/Petersburg/Leningrad 9, 12, 17, 23, 24, 118, 152, 162, 171, 172, 173, 174, 184, 207, 209, 217; Imperial Theatre (see also Academic Imperial Theatres) 176; Mariinsky Palace 118 Stafford-Clark, Max 80, 103, 110 n.9 Stalin, Joseph xxxi, 14±5 n.4, 32, 39 n.10, 93, 100, 109 n.7, 132 n.6, 139, 156, 184, 230 Stanislavsky (born Alexeyev), Konstantin xxxii, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 69 n.19, 96, 100 n.4, 103, 106, 109 n.6, 114, 116, 117, 129, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 198, 203, 231; My Life in Art 137 Stanitsyn, Viktor 33 State Youth Theatre of Vilnius (Lithuania) 183 Stein, Peter xxxii, 176, 186, 189, 199 Stenberg, Enar 140 Stephens, Robert 154 Steppe (Don/Donetsk) 4, 6, 17, 18, 22, 212 Stoppard, Tom 121 Strasberg, Lee xxxii, 185, 199 Stratford (England) 101, 121, 183 Strehler, Giorgio xxxii, 176, 179, 187, 188, 189, 199 Strindberg, August xxix, 139 Stroeva, Marianna 48 Stroganov (Russian landowning family) 112 Sturua, Robert 186, 199 Sudakov, Ilya Yakovlyevich 32 Sulerzhitsky, Leopold 13 SuppeÂ, Franz von 5 Surrealists 147 Sushkevich, Boris 149 Suvorin, Alexey Alexeyevich (Alexey Sergeyevich's son) 204 Suvorin, Alexey Sergeyevich 9, 10, 11, 12, 15 n.11, 40 n.14, 58, 59, 80, 204, 205, 206, 207, 209, 230, 233, 237 n.4, 238 n.17 Suvorin, Volodya (Alexey Sergeyevich's son) 209

291

general index Suzuki, Tadashi 186, 199 Suzuki Company of Toga (SCOT) 186 Svoboda, Josef/Joseph xxxii, 139, 140, 142, 154, 181, 199, see also Appendix 4, 264 Svobodin, Alexander 51 Svobodin, Pavel 11, 207 Sweden 153, 157 Sweeney Todd 48 Switzerland 150 Symbolism/Symbolist 64, 65, 70, 83±4, 87, 115, 134±6, 138, 148 n.19, 179, 180, 181, 189 Symons, Julian 151 Synge, John M. 83, 84, 86, 90 n.10 Szogyi, Alex 49; A Country Scandal 49 Szondi, Peter 71 Taganka Theatre (Moscow) 109 n.8, 131, 145, 170, 171, 182, 185, 189 Taganrog 3±6, 17, 43, 118, 170, 205 Tairov, Alexander (Aleksandr) 138, 139, 167, 175 n.7, 181, 200 Tartuffe (MolieÁre's character in the play of the same name ± see also MolieÁre) 237 Tatar 18, 24 Tchaikovsky, Peter Ilych 26 Teatro Olimpico (Vicenza, Italy) 144 Teleshev, Nikolai 13 `Thaw', The 33, 39 n.10, 109 n.7, 169, 181 Theatre of the Absurd 32, 179 TheÂaÃtre d'Art (Paris) 136 TheÂaÃtre de Chaillot (Paris) see Appendix 4, 265 TheÂaÃtre de l'Oeuvre 70 TheÂaÃtre des Arts (Paris) 184 TheÂaÃtre des Champs-ElyseÂes (Paris) 180 TheÂaÃtre des Mathurins (Paris) 180 TheÂaÃtre Libre 70 TheÂaÃtre National Populaire 48 Theatre of the Red Army (Teatr na Krasnoy Presne, Moscow) 91, 168, 169, 173, 180, 186 `Third International Chekhov Theatre Festival' 174 Thompson, Mark 144, 145 Thomson, David 152; Biographical Dictionary of the Cinema 152 Ti¯is 10 Tipton, Jennifer 146 Tokyo Engeki 182 Tolstoy, Alexei 114; The Scarlet Woman (poem) 114 Tolstoy, Lev 12, 26, 27, 28 n.18, 229; Anna

Karenina 229, 233; Improving Stories for Children 229; War and Peace 212 Tomsk 10 Tootsie (®lm) 161 Tovstonogov, Georgy (Georgi) 103, 109 ns.7 and 8, 141, 146, 167, 175 n.9, 184, 200 Tracy, Susan 109 n.5 Trenyov, Konstantin 31; The Pugachev's Revolt 31 Trushkin, Leonid 173 Tsanetoshi, Hirowatari 182, 200 Tsar 13, 15 n.11, 111, 113, 118, 152, 230, 238 n.12; Alexander II 111; Alexander III 111, 112; Nicholas II 113 Tsvilling Theatre (Chelyabinsk) 140 TuÈbingen 186 Tula 10 Tulloch, John xxxii, 118 Turgenev, Ivan Sergeyevich 8, 12, 39 n.12, 233, 234; Clara Milich 233; `Hamlet and Don Quixote' (essay, 1858) 39 n.12, 234 Turin 48 Turkey 3, 91, 94, 95, 96 Twain, Mark 6 Tyl Theatre (Prague) 139, see also Appendix 4, 264 Tynan, Kenneth 46, 48, 236 Ufa Studio (Germany) 151 Uncle Vanya Show, The 183 Un®nished Piece for Mechanical Piano, An (®lm ± see also Mikhalkov and Grif®ths) 50±2, 131, 155±6 Urals 19, 174 Vakhtangov, Evgeni/Yevgeny 166, 175 n.5, 178, 200 Vakhtangov Theatre (Moscow) 48 vaudeville 7, 10, 46, 57±9, 61, 65, 67, 124, 127, 131, 145, 150, 162, 166, 174, 178, 183, 230 Venice 153 Vertinskaya, Anastasia 35, 36 Victorian England 85 Victory Theatre (New York) xiii, 183 Vilar, Jean xxxii, 48 Vilkin, Alexander 172 Vilkina, Natasha 92 Visconti, Luchino 155, 177 Vitez, Antoine 181, 200 Vivian Beaumont Theatre (New York) 143 (illus.), 188 Volchek, Galina 171

292

general index Volodin, Aleksandr 178, 190 n.4 Volodina, Margarita 153 Vologda 174 von Trotta, Margarethe 157, 158; The German Sisters (®lm) 157; Rosa Luxemburg (®lm) 157 Voskresensk (Istra) 9 Vuchina, Nikolai 4, 14 n.3 Vysotsky, Vladimir 171, 175 n.18 Wagner, Richard 134, 147, 176; Gesamtkunstwerk 176 Wales 158 War of Independence (Ireland, 1919±21) 88 Wardle, Irving 48, 55 Warehouse (Theatre ± Royal Shakespeare Company, Stratford) 186 Warner, David 153 Warsaw Studio Theatre 183 Washington DC 159 Watts, Jeanne 154 Wehrmacht 150 Weimar 55 West Germany (see also Germany) 188 West Yorkshire Playhouse (Leeds) xiii, xiv, 121, 131, 132 (illus.) Wickert, Hartmut 186 Wild Honey (see also Frayn) 46, 50, 55, 121, 123, 127, 132 n.4, 156 Wilde, Oscar xxix, 83, 86, 233 Wilde, Sir William 86 Williams, Raymond 53, 54; Modern Tragedy 53

Williams, Tennessee 135 Williamson, Nicol 183 Williamstown Theatre (Massachusetts) 183 Willett, John 161 n.9 Wof®ngton, Peg 83 Wood, John 190 n.2 Wooster Group 146, 187; Brace Up ! 146, 187, 189 World Theatre Season (London) 102, 186 Worrall, Nick 147 n.15 Yalta 12, 13, 24, 26, 27 n.11, 133 n.11, 153 Yanovskaya, Genrietta (Henrietta) 173, 180, 200; Ivanov and Others 173, 180 Yaroslavl (Yaroslav) 10, 62, 114, 117, 120 n.22 Yavorskaya, Lydia 11 Yeats, William Butler 56, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88 Yefremov/Efremov, Oleg (see also Efremov) xxxii, 33, 35±8, 38 (illus.), 169±70, 172, 174, 181, 192, see also Appendix 4, 263, 264 Yekaterinburg 173 Yeremin, Yuri 173 Yevstigneyev, Yevgeny 36 Young Vic (London) 133 n.10 Yunovich, So®a xxxii, 141 Zadek, Peter 179, 181, 200 Zakharov, Mark 34, 170, 174 Zakharyin, Grigory 6 Zola, Emile 15 n.12, 229, 230

293