In the summer and autumn 2016 the National Theatre had a Young Chekhov season of three plays – Ivanov, Platonov and The Seagull, with three of them being translated by David Hare. While the two first texts were produced by Hare in his earlier collaboration with Jonathan Kent in the Almeida in the 1990s, the translation of The Seagull was made specifically for this season, and thus by May 2017 could be still considered a new-born child. It is this translation, and not the more classical one by Michael Frayn that was used by the director Rupert Stonehill and his team of actors for their garden show in Trinity 2017. Indeed, this decision ruled out the possible expectations of a Chekhov-goer to see frocks, sun shades and samovars all cutely placed on summer tables in the beautiful garden surroundings. And indeed, even if such option had been opted for, the weather would have ruled it out, as eventually the gardens turned out to be unavailable due to heavy rain throughout the whole run.
So, once the normal British Chekhov is ruled out, what is left? The director’s decision was to set the show in the 1980s or 1990s – indeed it is a bit hard to guess, as the clothes choice was a bit of a mismatch, serving more to bring out the specifics of particular character than a certain uniting atmosphere of the set. For instance, Konstantin (Leo Danczak) wore a brown leather jacket and a teeshirt (a misfit, a rock-n-roll stranger), while Dorn (Tom Ames) has a very English-looking grey three-piece suit (a well-to-do middle class man), Trigorin (Cameron J.Quinn) dresses more like a French leftist intellectual of the 1960s (an intellectual type), while Arkadina (Cat White) has different glamour outfits (an egocentric actor) which could be good at a posh dress party but could hardly tell us something about Russia or any other country. But a student production is usually reduced to picking and choosing from what is available, so no complaints here. The only character dressed as a symbol of the production was Nina – she had a white dress and a black woollen jersey on top of it, and you could clearly see that she was indeed a seagull before anything was said or done. And the way she draped the actual stuffed bird in her black jersey was even more tragic and set the tone for her destiny from the start. As for the set, apart from chairs, picnic rugs and some additional props, it barely existed, as of course, the initial plan was that the garden with its walls and trees would serve as one. The Magdalen Auditorium was alright in terms of everyone fitting into it, but it certainly limited the director’s decisions and actors’ behaviour on stage (and the props had to be carried it from outside under heavy rain), but this fact only adds respect for the team for being able to cope under these stressful circumstances.
All these things considered, the production was definitely a success - for me it was another intellectual exercise to re-think Chekhov’s play, to see how tangible it is for different interpretations, and how it could function on many different levels. Stonehill’s choice, it seems to me, was to explore the psychology of individual relationships within the play and the social hierarchies of the characters, and here he and his perfectly cast team did their job excellently. Even Medvedenko (Chester Pylkannen – by his good looks could be Kostya indeed) and Shamraev (a very funny Jack O’Dowd) are excellently cast, while all the big roles (Arkadina, Sorin, Kostantin, Nina, Trigorin, Dorn) are on the spot in terms of appearance and build of the actors – the casting manager had a really well-tuned feeling of the play’s characters. And what’s more – and it is a real joy of the student production – the actors’ psychology as individuals seemed to correspond to their characters – thus, one could really feel the dominant and elegant stance of Cat White, the confident sociability of Tom Ames, the nervy sincerity of Leo Danczak, the intellectual reserve and self-probing of Cameron J. Quinn. And in my view, Chekhov’s production gave them a chance to explore themselves in imaginary circumstances of the play, and it was incredibly interesting to observe them doing this. Thus, the main director’s gift was indeed in opening his actors up for some sustained, nuanced, very well thought through and developed character exploration.
And those indeed were excellent – it was really rewarding to observe Nina’s (excellent leading role of Megan Thresh) infatuation with Trigorin and her later convincing and tragic transformation from a sincere girl in white wondering how the artists might live into someone who had seen it all and just seeks for a refuge to hide from this life. Cat White’s Arcadina was also magnificent, though her motivations were may be drawn with too clear and large strokes by the actress. We see a very egocentric woman who does everything to manipulate people around her and twist the situation to her favour. Her scene of convincing Trigorin to stay was the most delicate and exquisite, showing in one moment everything she is capable of. Cameron J. Quinn, in his turn, as Trigorin, draws a fine line between showing a man with a lack of will whose hobbies are restricted to fishing, and a professional writer where he, though feeling himself more as a Salieri than Mozart, still convinces us of his experience and struggles, and potential mastery of the craft. Quite a surprise was a great emphasis on Dorn – excellently played by Tom Ames – who seemed to be able to cool the passions down with a confident smile, while routinely serving as a conversational sparring partner for Sorin. Sorin, played by James Geddes, had a bit too much of the ‘elderly’ mannerisms which were dropped by the actor in the last act and exposed Sorin’s tragedy of dying versus Dorn’s ever-smiling capacity to stay young forever. Konstantin (played by Leo Danczak), in my view, lacked the intellectualism which could make us believe he is indeed a great writer – his mother’s scepticism about his talent seems well-deserved here. However, his rebellious sincerity and continuous love for Nina eventually wins over the viewer, although he does not seem to grow up in a way Nina does towards the end of the play.
Overall, the production was a wonderful character exploration – sincere and enthusiastic. What it might have missed was Chekhov’s philosophy of us all making one world soul – as actually the characters are closely knit together, while not knowing it, by the same aspirations and the same feeling of their desires and dreams unfulfilled. All the actors and their characters seem to exist only in duos or trios, and more often encapsulated in their own troubles, finding it hard to reach out to people close to them. However, what Chekhov wanted to show, I think, that even in-between these misunderstandings and phrases not heard and not understood, loves missed and unrequited, there were constant sparks of possibility of belonging to one soul, as though one was walking on the streets of