GRADE LEVEL TARGET: High School 9th-12th grade.
Things to know:
Plot:
“The Seagull” is a play about unrequited love and the meaning of life. The moon rises on the lake-bordered estate of Sorin in a beautiful countryside. Family and friends of Sorin enter and the love triangles of this play are established, setting forth the ensuing conflict: Medvendenko loves Masha, but Masha loves Treplev. Treplev loves Nina, and Nina loves Treplev until Trigorin (Treplev’s mother’s lover) enters the scene and Trigorin’s love is split between the two women and himself.
Throughout the play, Treplev struggles with the artistic life style, unable to create great work like the famous Trigorin, as well as with love and the banality of existence, leading to a number of bold moves on his part to achieve freedom from the pain.
Author:
Anton Chekhov is known as one of the most prolific playwrights in history. His brilliant works that span from the famous “Cherry Orchard” to “Uncle Vanya,” are all incredibly well known and commonly produced plays all around the world in different translations originating from the language of Russian. Born in 1860, he was first regarded as one of the greatest short story writers in history… he was also a pretty good doctor! “The Seagull” was the first play he had written and sent out to be performed on the stage. Produced in 1896 at the Alexandrynsky Theatre first: it was an extreme failure. The audience hated it, assuming that all the characters in the play were “lunatics.” Chekhov, then fled to the country claiming he was never going to write another play again. If it wasn’t for Stanislavsky producing it again a year later with such brilliant success, Chekhov wouldn’t have gone on to write his other three masterpieces. Unfortunately, due to tuberculosis he died before he could write anymore plays after the “Cherry Orchard.” A notable device used by Chekhov in his works is the occurrence of characters in situations where, instead of directly addressing conflict, they dance around it and most, I f not all action, occurs offstage and the bulk of what happens in script is reactions to said actions and the drama that ensues from that.
Characters:
Sorin – Elder owner of the estate in decaying health. Brother of Arkadina. Uncle of Treplev.
Treplev – Younger protagonist who is a struggling artist. Son of Arkadina. Loves Nina.
Trigorin – Middle-aged famous writer. Lover of Arkadina. Falls in love with Nina.
Nina – Daughter of a wealthy landowner who aspires to be a famous actress like Arkadina. Loves Treplev at first, and then Trigorin.
Arkadina – Famous actress. Middle aged and immature. Mother of Treplev, lover of Trigorin.
Masha – Depressed young woman who loves Treplev. Is aware of Medvendenko’s love for her, and she hates him for that.
Medvendenko - Poor school teacher. Loves Masha.
Dorin – Attractive doctor who loves himself.
Paulina – Mother of Masha and unhappy wife of Shamrayev, but is secretly in love with Dorn the doctor.
Shamrayev – Manager of Sorin’s estate. Married to Paulina. Star struck by Trigorin and Arkadina.
Performance History:
Like mentioned earlier, “The Seagull” premiered in St. Petersburg at the Alexandrinsky Theatre and was a big failure. Revived by Stanislavsky in Moscow, it was a huge success. In a letter to Chekhov from an audience member stated:
“In the first act something special started, if you can so describe a mood of excitement in the audience that seemed to grow and grow. Most people walked through the auditorium and corridors with strange faces, looking as if it were their birthday and, indeed, (dear God I'm not joking) it was perfectly possible to go up to some completely strange woman and say: "What a play? Eh?"
The play continued to be produced in great success, even to this day. Uta Hagen made her broadway debut as Nina at the age of 18. The show also opened up on Broadway, again, in 1992 in the Lyceum Theatre starting Tyne Daly, Ethan Hawke, Jon Voight and Laura Linney.
There was also a star-ridden production of “The Seagull” done by the NY Shakespeare Festival at the Delacorte Theatre starring Natalie Portman, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Meryl Streep that took the show in a different direction. CurtainUp reviews claimed that“few will be surprised to learn it is pitched in the lighter, funnier direction. Yet few could fully expect the degree of rethinking we find in the creation of some of the characters”
Things to Think About:
1.) What’s the significance of the shooting of the seagull?
2.) How does the change of weather correlate to the change of events and scenes?
3.) Why would Chekhov consider and regard this a “comedy?”
4.) What character, do you think, is the happiest at the end of the play? Why or why not?
5.) Does anything actually happen in this play and on stage?
Exploring Further:
1.) Anton Chekhov.
http://www.theatredatabase.com/19th_century/anton_chekhov_001.html
It’s a lengthier biography than my own but still not too long as to demote attentiveness.
2.) Short Stories.
http://www.shortstoryarchive.com/c/anton_chekhov.html
A list of his short stories for reading pleasure. Helps in getting a grasp for Chekhov’s style of writing.
3.) Plays.
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/c/chekhov/anton/
Read his plays online for free!
4.) Play information.
http://www.seagulltheplay.com/
A whole website devoted to “The Seagull.” Contains hordes of information for the avid reader.
5.) Crossword
http://www.crosswordcraze.com/a/anton_chekhov_crossword.html
An Anton Chekhov crossword puzzle! Answers elude to his works as well has his life.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Dramaturg Statement
Based on my research and reflection into the script, I have found myself to have a pretty good insight into the world of “The Seagull” that may be of help to the design process.
First off, this is a play dealing with unhappy people despite Chekhov’s label as a comedy. Chekhov believed that it was impossible to strictly label something as comedy or tragedy because life itself is abundant in both in almost all situations. This is especially true for “The Seagull.” Yes: sad things happen, but much of the lives of these characters on their way to sadness are painted with lightheartedness and play. It’s important to not stress the sadness otherwise it may come off as a terrible imitation of life. Previous productions who have done this have been labeled as forced and trying to hard as well as laughable. Scenes may easily drag like nobody’s business (especially in the 4th act) if this isn’t kept in mind.
On another note: a play that focuses mostly on theme and ideas instead of actual action (where that occurs off stage) it’s wise to pay great attention to text itself and to dig up all the subtext. Chekhov’s plays are FULL of subtext and without understanding the characters motives and feelings the play would be, otherwise, boring. The dialogue and debates are there to enrapture the audience and the characters are full of life and love. Because of how complex this show is, it can be difficult to keep an audience engaged and a show like this needs a strong cast to pull off the author’s intent. It’s also important to keep the characters grounded and as real as possible or the audience might lose the sense of the character’s magnitude and power.
One of the hidden relationships in this play is with Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Being able to find all the similarities can help with the progression of discovering the life that Chekhov breathed into these characters.
A pretty hard problem of this play is how to do the set and scenery. The setting of this play takes place is a countryside on a lake. The play has four acts and takes place in a different part of the setting in each one. The way previous productions handled these set changes differ. The most common and effective one so far has been the creation of the walls of the inside of the estate and then using lights and/or curtains to mask them when needed, and then, again using lights, make it look like a night sky and represent the outdoors. Also, a clever way to do the play within a play could prove difficult as well. This part of the play almost CALLS for special effects, whether it be haze, lighting or stage fog, the characters and the stage direction mention multiple instances of “stage magic.”
If one was trying to modernize this production, it has been noted to have been successful on different occasions. American Repertory Theatre had a very powerful modernization of this play. They took a rocky slash angsty take on the play and it was a big hit. It has also been successful to portray the characters in a more harsher and violent light if that’s a direction the director is interesting in going. Trying something very “modern” isn’t out of the question either. Some productions have successfully incorporated dance and music into their productions and captivated audiences.
All in all, the putting up of this production hosts most of its success within the director because of the action occurring mostly offstage. With the setting being in a Russian summer (not cold at all), in a time adaptable play, and all the crazy stuff like the shooting suicide attempt and suicide itself occurring not in view of the audience, there’s not TOO many obstacles in terms of physical staging.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Assignment 3 - Producing the Play
Table of Contents
1.) Kitchen Dog Theater
A.) Facts
B.) Pictures
C.) Review Capsules 1 + 2
2.) Marin Theatre Company
A.) Facts
B.) Pictures
C.) Review Capsules 1 + 2
3.) NY Shakespeare Festival
A.) Facts
B.) Pictures
C.) Review Capsules 1 + 2
4.) Steppenwolf Theatre Company
A.) Facts
B.) Review Capsule 1
5.) Goodman Theatre
A.) Facts
B.) Pictures
C.) Review Capsules 1 + 2
6.) American Repertory Theatre
A.) Facts
B.) Pictures
C.) Review Capsule 1
BASIC FACTS
Producing Organization: Kitchen Dog Theater
Venue: McKinney Avenue Contemporary – Heldt/Hall Theater
City, State: Dallas, TX
Month, Year: 11/13/09 - 12/12/09
Director: Cameron Cobb
Designers:
Set Designer: Robert Winn
Lighting Designer: Laura McMeley
Pictures
REVIEW CAPSULE
Review 1:
“The Seagull, as written, comes to a very jolted, unexpected ending. Thankfully, Cobb saw fit to add a simple prelude in the form of a dance. The characters quietly joined in the garden and paired together in the way they were once, they way they wished to be or the way they had become. It was their dance to life. I would be hard pressed to come up with any major criticism towards this production of The Seagull.”
Author: Mary L. Clark
Publication: The Column
Link: http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2010/apr/13/theater-review-seagull-kitchen-dog-theater-dallas/
Review 2:
“Chekhov's plays have so many important characters that it's sometimes hard to keep them separate in your head. You won't have that problem with Kitchen Dog Theater's The Seagull. Every role in Cameron Cobb's directorial debut with the company, which opened Friday, is sharply distinctive. Indeed, if the production has a fault, it's that each figure seems to occupy his own little world. But that's part of the point. In Chekhov, they do.”
Author: Lawson Taitte
Publication: The Dallas Morning News
Date: April 12, 2010 Monday
BASIC FACTS
Organization: Marin Theatre Company
Venue: Marin Theatre Company – Boyer Theatre
City/State: Mill Valley, CA
Month(s), Year: 01/27/11 - 02/20/11
Director: Jasson Minadakis
Designers:
Set: Rob Morgan
Lights: York Kennedy
PICTURES
REVIEW CAPSULE
Review 1:
“The large cast works well in ensemble, yet due to writing and directorial choices, the play drags, particularly in the fourth act, and with its lengthy insider musings about the nature of art and fame. Some of Appel’s new inserted material might be responsible — in this case, less might have been more.“
Author: Janos Gereben
Publication: The Examiner
Review 2:
“Love, in Chekhov's play, takes nearly as bad a beating as his character's hopes and dreams. Though marred here and there by some clunky direction (how can Trigorin sit next to a dead seagull for 10 minutes before suddenly noticing it?), Appel's adaptation is pleasingly crisp, and sharply to the point, allowing Chekhov's early artistic ambitions and youthful passions to fairly explode across the stage. Though clearly the work of a playwright with much to say (and much still to learn), this Seagull showcases what has allowed Chekhov's messy masterpieces to endure for over a hundred years.”
Author: David Templeton
BASIC FACTS
Producing Organization: Joseph Papp Public Theater/NY Shakespeare Festival
Venue: Delacorte Theatre
City, State: New York City, New York
Month(s), Year: August 12, 2001 - August 25, 2001
Director: Mike Nichols
Designers:
Set Design: Bob Crowley
Lighting Design: Jennifer Tipton
PICTURES
REVIEW CAPSULE
Review 1
“I've written before about the curious balance Chekhov's play demands. On the one hand, it's about hopelessness, beginning with Masha (Marcia Gay Harden) "in mourning for her life" and ending with Konstantin (Philip Seymour Hoffman) killing himself. Each of its many principal characters possesses a pained center because of an awareness of what he or she can never achieve. On the other hand, it is described by the playwright as "A Comedy in Four Acts". With Tom Stoppard providing the witty, contemporized (but faithful) translation, and Mike Nichol's sure comedic instincts at the throttle, few will be surprised to learn it is pitched in the lighter, funnier direction. Yet few could fully expect the degree of rethinking we find in the creation of some of the characters. Bob Crowley may have designed sets and costumes that seat us firmly in Mother Russia, but Mr. Nichols lets none of his characters get any closer than Brighton Beach.”
Author: Les Gutman
Publisher: CurtainUp
Link: http://www.curtainup.com/seagullcentralpark.html
Review 2
“And though it is frequently funny and moving -- partly owing to playwright Tom Stoppard's fine adaptation -- this ''Seagull'' is more an event than a well-rendered revival. Nichols may have extended his actors carte blanche, allowing them to walk wherever or do gymnastics if so inclined. (Who knew Streep could cartwheel?) But some handle freedom better than others: Walken, for instance, gives a wonderfully subdued, soulful performance as Streep's sickly brother, while Hoffman -- in a more pivotal part -- could afford to turn it up. A bit of the bluster he showed in 2000's ''True West'' would serve him well here. Nor is Portman -- another young actor with intelligence and sensitivity to spare -- ready to carry the tragic Nina on her slender shoulders.”
Author: Melissa Rose Bernardo
Publication: Entertainment Weekly
BASIC FACTS
Producing Organization: Steppenwolf Theatre Company
Venue: Steppenwolf Theatre Company’s Studio Theatre
City, State: Chicago, IL
Month(s), Year: 03/20/03 - 04/20/03
Director: Jim Lasko
Designers:
Set Design: Stephanie Nelson
Lighting Design: Chris Wooten
REVIEW CAPSULE
“Seagull, Redmoon Theater, at Steppenwolf Theatre Company. Last summer in Humboldt Park, Redmoon staged the first of three versions of The Seagull, using vaudevillian clowning instead of words to convey Chekhov's story of ceaseless longing. The disappointing result, Nina, lacked nuance and depth but was visually stimulating. This second take uses the same actors in the same parts, builds on Nina's jerky rhythms, and adds just the essential text. Though director Jim Lasko's second adaptation offers no new insights into the play, it is joyfully entertaining, stripped-down but not too much.”
Author: Jennifer Vanasco
Publication: Chicago Reader
BASIC FACTS
Producing Organization: Goodman Theatre
Venue: Albert Ivar Goodman Theatre
City, State: Chicago, IL
Month(s), Year: 01/06/02 - 02/10/02
Director: Kate Whoriskey
Designer:
Set Designer: Derek McLane
Lighting Designer: Robert Perry
PICTURES
REVIEW CAPSULE:
Review 1
“Not only do the themes at play in this scene—intergenerational struggle, the capricious ways of the heart, the fight for the artistic soul and so forth—define “The Seagull,” so too the acting challenges in performing a scene with such a rapid yet precisely paced tonal swing that could so easily come off as forced or, even worse, laughable. Fortunately, director Robert Falls has gathered some of the finest actors working in Chicago—perhaps one of the best ensembles ever assembled on a local stage—and, not simply content to let them do what they always do, has rehearsed the play for seven weeks, double the normal time.”
Author: Brian Hieggelke
Publication: Newcity Stage
Link: http://newcitystage.com/2010/10/26/review-the-seagullgoodman-theatre/
Review 2
“Mary Beth Fisher, not so well cast in the pivotal role of Arkadina, the self-absorbed fading matriarch of the Russian stage, throws herself into the proceedings with her typical craft and spirit — such is her intensity and neediness, she almost claws the other actors to get what her characters wants in any given moment. That's fine, and very gripping and moving, as far as it goes, but what is missing here is a full sense of the character's gravitas and magnitude. Fisher just doesn't evoke the necessary sense of self-absorption — she doesn't wander though space like a celebrity in her own head. The pain is a huge component of this character, of course, but the lack of stature means that it's not clear what Grush's Konstantin is fighting against; Arkadina is, well, far too nice. Falls needed to help find a rather different track.”
Author: Chris Jones
Publication: Chicago Tribune
Link: http://leisureblogs.chicagotribune.com/the_theater_loop/2010/10/seagull-goodman-theatre-review.html
BASIC FACTS
Organization: American Repertory Theater
Venue: Loeb Drama Center
City, State: Cambridge, MA
Month(s), Year: 01/10/09 - 02/01/09
Director: Janos Szansz
Designers:
Set Design: Riccardo Hernandez
Lighting Design: Christopher Akerlind
PICTURES
REVIEW CAPSULE
“Last fall a reportedly exquisite period staging by Ian Rickson, first mounted for London's Royal Court Theatre, garnered ecstatic reviews on Broadway. And Boston's Publick Theatre mounted a respectable al fresco production last summer in which the Charles River stood in for Chekhov's lakeside setting. But Szász's vision of the play, though it casts some of the characters in a harsher and more violent light than Chekhov does, has a peculiar majesty — one that marries the avant-garde of 100 years ago, exemplified by a winged Nina cranked aloft by a pulley in the play within the play, to the no-more-masterpieces experimentalism that has been a defining characteristic of the ART.”
Publisher: The Boston Phoenix
Author: Carolyn Clay
Link: http://thephoenix.com/boston/arts/75305-seagull/?page=1#TOPCONTENT
Producing the Play
When it comes to problems posed in “The Seagull’s” text, there’s really not a lot to worry about. Luckily for the production staff, Anton Chekhov wrote “The Seagull” to where all the action takes place off-stage and what happens on-stage is the dialogue associated with such. On the other hand there are a few things that should be addressed. First off, is how to deal with the play-within-a-play. It may be difficult how to incorporate the stage Nina uses, along with the “glowing red orbs of light behind her” and the stage fog, with the set and scenery in a fluid manner. Another problem posed is the change of scenery. The location of the play goes from, in order: a park, to a croquet lawn next a house with a verandah and a tree, to a dining room in Sorin’s estate, to finally, a drawing room within the same house. These completely different locations can prove to be tricky to maneuver around. The last problem that one might encounter with this production anywhere is how to produce the lake in the play. One of the big descriptions of this estate is that it’s right next to a lake and it’s supposed to be seen when outdoors. Not only that but also the sun and the moon.
When thinking of problems at our school there are not a lot of differentiation from the former problems. Like I said earlier, not a lot of action occurs onstage so, mainly, the only real problems that are of any concern are the ones that deal with scenery and set. Truthfully, I think this show could be done both in the Erica Starr theatre as well as in the showcase as well (the latter with slightly longer transitions), so venue wouldn’t be a problem for me, though it would probably look a lot better on the main stage. The lake problem would probably go over better in the main stage, probably with some sort of scrim in the background with a projection (a good one!). The only thing acting wise that might be a problem, would have to do with the main stage though. The characters in “The Seagull” have the responsibility for painting the story of what happens off stage for the audience… and because of that, it’s harder to view the nuances not only on the characters faces, but the farther away you sit, the chances are the more you’ll have a detracted experience with this production.
Based on what I’ve seen, people have done a lot of different things to help prevent problems from arising out of textual issues. With the American Repertory Theatre’s modern version, rather than going through the trouble of removing the house in which the 2nd act takes place, they simply used lights to darken the walls of the scenery to make it appear like a dark sky at night. At UIC theatre, they used a black curtain to hide the walls of the house and use lights to create a watery effect giving the illusion of a lake nearby. They also had a wooden platform and a small curtain to act as the play-within-a-play stage in front of the curtain while the audience it sat with their backs to the audience in a semi-circle. Instead of using lighting effects to create the glowing orbs, an actress cloaked in shadow simply had two lighting instruments attached to her costume.
In terms of critic response: there have been mixed reviews. A lot of well known theaters who have a wide talent pool of versatile actors and a lot of money, it’s not a surprise that the performance was good. There’s always the exception though. Like I said earlier, it can be very difficult to portray the action that takes place offstage to onstage via dialogue and still make it interesting for the audience watching. A fine example of this is the Marin Theatre company’s performance that dragged because it lacked the life that Chekhov’s characters need to make the show effective. Another example is the performance at Delacorte theatre that hired a bunch of famous actors. Critics claimed the show was more of a spectacle… people came to see the actors, not the show, and it appeared as if the director kind of gave them free reign. Of course the critics love the script – it’s a classic -, but because of it’s difficulty it’s either a hit or miss.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)