The Arts in New York City
It’s always nice to walk into a café and find out it’s a theatre.
Albeit our class had been forewarned, I still found the café to be quite a nice surprise. It added a very creative, “hipster” ambience to the whole evening, so much so that I felt in the mood for a cup of coffee.
As we walked into the theatre, we were greeted with another surprise: a small theatre with seats on three sides of the square stage, and so close you could see the actors spit (that’s how you know when they get really emotional).
And emotional they were. The actors, for the most part, played their parts fantastically, so that even when I hadn’t pictured the scene or character in a certain way, I find myself loving the production’s interpretation.
With one exception: Ivanov (Ethan Hawke). He was annoying, and a whiner, and unsympathetic. Which is bothersome because, quite frankly, I kind of like the written Ivanov. I suspect a fraction of my dislike for this Ivanov was due to the different interpretation of Anna (Joely Richardson); I had pictured Anna to be a passive, weak character, similar to Stella from Tennessee Williams’ A Streetcar Named Desire. Yet Richardson played a strong-willed, bold, smart woman, making Anna more sympathetic and Ivanov much less so. Maybe their sympathy levels work in an indirect relationship? I’m digressing. Ivanov’s character was not unlikable solely because Anna was a strong character.
Listen, Ivanov, I understand you are depressed, slightly crazy, and possibly an unwilling existentialist, but that does not mean you rant and spit and talk faster than a New Yorker. You should have the normalcy crack subtly and decay; there should be a loud quietness. You, dear Ivanov, did not seem like a normal guy lost in a mysterious struggle; rather you seemed spoiled. Unlike J.D. Saligner’s Holden Caulfield, you did not have any reason for your depression, nor did you have witty commentary on the world. Unlike half the twisted cast from Narita Ryohgo’s Baccano!, you did not speak with conviction, which turned possibly meaningful speeches into unpleasant rants. I expected you, Ivanov, to be like Richard Corey, the titular character of A.R. Gurney’s play. Both of you lead lives with little reason to be unhappy (and illicit lovers), yet you both decay, showing that a “happy” person can become disillusioned with life and break.
Now that I’m done with my own rant, let me applaud every other interpretation. I have already gushed about the pro-feminist performance of Richardson. Misha Borkin (Glenn Fitzgerald) was less comical than I had pictured, but he was just wonderful. I almost wish he and Babakina had fallen for each other. Shabelsky (George Morfogen) was super wry and sarcastic and great! I would have directed Shabelsky as a more “big” character (such as this production’s Lebedev or a little less extravagant Dulcamara), but gosh darn it I simply adore Morfogen’s version of him.
There were other characters I would have directed differently, but enough of that; as I director, I am impressed with the entire cast and crew. In theatre, I have been taught to never turn my back to the audience; but when directing on a stage with which the audience is totally involved, that rule is defenestrated with force. Even so, I never became annoyed if an actor was not facing me, because the proximity of our seats made up for the odd angles we viewed the actors; the inclusiveness was kept, if not increased.
On to some miscellaneous thoughts:
Seeing the performance, I noticed details I hadn’t in the book: the owl being an omen of bad luck, the Hamlet parallels. I also noticed more French, which was a nice historical touch because upper class Russians used to speak French.
I believe they added baby powder to Hawke’s hair to make him look older. By the second act his hair was a couple of shades darker.
Uncle Shabelsky is a count… and if you would like to be a count too, you can buy such a title from the Principality of Sealand!
I like the play a lot. I hope to see or read it in Russian one day, after I have learned the language.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
Wow Michelle, that was quite an interesting entourage of feelings on the play! I, too, felt like Ivanov was whining too much and did not nearly own up to his responsibilities as a husband and as a man in general. However, I suppose that is exactly what makes him so intriguing as he takes on qualities that make him seem selfish and immature. It’s quite eccentric if you ask me. Undoubtedly, Sasha definitely outshone him as her strength and perseverance rivaled his uncertainty and dissatisfaction with life. She was the light that shone through the darkness as she took Ivanov from the dust and raised him to an individual that could portray true emotion (somewhat). However, I do believe she a bit impulsive in making the decision to marry a man who was clearly not in the right mindset and whose own judgement was clouded by his disillusionment and discomfort with his marriage and life in general. I enjoyed the fact that despite the character flaws, each one had something exciting and innovative to contribute to the development of the story’s plot-Sasha’s feistiness added zest and rejuvenated the status of women in the play while Ivanov’s indifference made him seem distant and cold, adding to his characterization. The actors and actresses of Classic Stage Company did an amazing job!