I should confess straightaway to looking forward to “The Cherry Orchard” this afternoon (Saturday) with unnatural anticipation. It’s the best play by an amazing writer
Consider Chekhov. He comes from a bankrupt peasant family and writes some of the greatest plays since W. Shake, all the while a practicing doctor — and he’s dying of TB the whole time! He starts schools and initiates other enlightened measures for the poor, and he somehow becomes a maniac gardener
Yes, he planted a cherry orchard.
Chekhov is the first guy to look at the stage and say: life isn’t like that.
He’s right. Don’t know about you, but I don’t spend every day falling in love or shooting somebody or giving immortal soliloquies. People in plays should eat lunch and chat and drift away from each other, C said, and here’s the tricky part: it must all mean something to audiences. It should all somehow open a window through which we glimpse the very essence of life passing us like a breeze, so that maybe we don’t wind up like Firs in the Cherry Orchard.
So a silly aristocratic woman fritters away her estate in 1904 Russia despite warnings that she’s blowing it. “Nothing happens,” as some people say, then everybody drifts off except an old servant, who is left behind, forgotten, to die.
The old fight is whether this is a comedy or a tragedy. Chekhov insisted it was a comedy, almost a farce. Stanislavski, who directed at the Moscow Art Theatre, was just as vehement that it was a tragedy, telling C he didn’t know what he’d written.
Clurman, who saw the Moscow Art Theatre touring production in 1924, with Olga Knipper, Chekhov’s wife, playing Madam Ravensky, said it was played faster and more comically than later American productions he’d seen. From this we conclude that the American practice for much of the 20th century was a slower and sadder Cherry Orchard than than the one that Chekhov considered too slow and too sad!
When I asked Todd Barton, who wrote the music, the tragedy/comedy question, he said there was an ambiguity about the play, and that tragic/comic wasn’t a question he was concerned with.
Libby Appel told me straight out it’s ironically comic, as did translator Allison Horsley.
Judith-Marie Bergan will play Ranevsky. Come to think of it, you have Ranevsky and Rosalind, two of the great roles for women, each in a play in which “nothing happens,” in less than 24 hours.
Bergan was formidable as Lady Bracknell last year. Lyubov is a complex role. The thing with Lyubov is that she’s a fool who cannot help but mess up. And she functions as the villain, driving the play’s action, what there is of it. Yet Chekhov has drawn her affectionately.
Richard Howard is the feckless Gaev. Armando Duran figures to be an intense Lopakhin, just because he’s intense. The key to Lopakhin is he’s not a bad guy, and he should not be played as a scheming, avaricious upstart. He too is more complex that that.
There should be no orations in any of this. You don’t emote Chekhov lines like Richard III.