Ivanov, Coffee, and Saliva

The first play we have seen as a group, Ivanov, was also the first performance that I felt I could truly relate to and put into perspective. I could compare and contrast its execution with all the other plays, movies and television shows that I have seen, and, therefore, actually judge it. I could finally know whether a particular performance was good or bad, an ability that I lacked regarding Spellbeamed, Political Mother and Le Elise De Amore. Consequently, I was pleasantly surprised at how genuinely great Ivanov was, and how it shattered any of the expectations that I had held. The aspects of the play that appealed most strongly to me were the theatre venue, the acting performances, and the characters themselves.

The only word that can adequately describe a venue that looked, smelled, and felt like coffee, is intimate. When, in addition to the stated intimacy, saliva is visible flying from the performers’ mouths, the audiences’ relationship to that venue can be considered almost symbiotic. Ivanov was performed in such a venue, and the effect was dramatic. Unlike the performances we previously attended, I could actually see the expressions on the actors’ faces. This lent the play an entirely new layer, one that was not present in the other performances, and contributed heavily to my understanding of the characters’ motivations and actions. One felt as if he or she was a part of the performance itself, factoring into the decisions and resolve of the characters on stage.

What astonished me most about the acting performances was the sheer vastness of the gap between the abilities of Ethan Hawke, the lead and an established movie star, and those of the other actors. While the performances of the other actors were excellent in their own right, Ethan Hawke, in his role as Ivanov, exuded a sense of confidence that overwhelmed and overshadowed everyone else on stage. No matter where he was, he drew my attention; I could not seem to look away from him, even if he was simply sitting in a corner, playing with a deck of cards. The second most notable performance would be that of Juliet Rylance in the role of Sasha—the attempted martyr. I felt that she was really able to convey the bubbly determination that courses through her character, all of it directed towards “fixing” Ivanov. I also thought that those same two characters had remarkable chemistry together, easily making me believe how quickly their relationship progressed from admiration to marriage. This, perhaps, can be attributed to their prior work together, a film, “Sinister”, which was released in October of this past year.

What intrigued me most about the characters was how Chekov, in his imagining of them and their personalities, was able to so nimbly sidestep any clichés, with the one notable exception being the Count. It was surprising because most dramatic performances are steeped in clichés, since they are a useful device, which enables the audience to identify with the characters and their difficulties. I thought it was amazing how Chekov was able to avoid boxing Ivanov in with all the other neurotic, self-absorbed, Hamlet-like roles by making him mock that very same identity. Another intriguing aspect of the characters in Ivanov was how simply entertaining they were. The qualities possessed by Ivanov and the psychological torture he inflicted on his loving wife, made him one of the most unlikable fictional characters I have ever had the pleasure of detesting, right underneath Delores Umbridge. There is something oddly satisfying of being able to truly despise an imaginary person, and everything that he stands for.