Three Sisters displays little restraint
By Anton Chekhov. Adapted by Amiel Gladstone. Directed by Jane Heyman. Presented by the Only Child Collective. At the Cultch’s Vancity Culture Lab on Wednesday, April 3. Continues until April 20
This production is lumpy. It yields significant theatrical riches, but it’s inconsistent and often off the mark.
Chekhov’s play focuses on Olga, Masha, and Irina, three educated young women who are stranded in a provincial Russian town that’s enlivened for them only by the presence of military officers. The script is about the unattainability of happiness. The sisters long to move to Moscow, where, they imagine, their lives will suddenly fall into place. But it soon becomes apparent that Moscow is a kind of fiction that the sisters have invented to keep their dreams of fulfillment alive.
Though often funny, Chekhov’s play is marked by melancholy restraint. Olga and Masha speak three languages and Irina four, but they are all too refined to speak up effectively when their brother Andrei marries a vulgar townswoman named Natasha and she starts to take over the family home. Even when Olga, the eldest, attempts to dress her down, Natasha wins the day through sheer, poorly educated, belligerent force.
Unfortunately, restraint is not a defining characteristic of director Jane Heyman’s production. Amiel Gladstone’s adaptation of Chekhov’s script is so colloquial that the relative formality of the story’s late-19th-century setting is lost. In an earlier translation, an officer named Tuzenbach describes Vershinin, who will fall in love with Masha: “He’s certainly no fool, but he likes to hear himself speak.” In Gladstone’s adaptation, Tuzenbach says: “Smart. The only thing—talky, talky, talky, talky, talky. Talky.” And Gladstone’s stage directions indicate that Tuzenbach makes a talking gesture with his hands. For me, this slacker informality fits poorly with the taut internal lives of the script’s characters.
And although Chekhov makes it clear that these characters often brim with tears, Heyman goes further, encouraging giddy expressiveness and impulsive physicality. In Heyman’s interpretation, an officer named Solyony physically assaults Irina, the youngest sister, ripping the undertow out of their conversation and killing it through exposure to the light.
It’s worth noting that Bob Frazer’s performance as Vershinin, which is the finest work here, flourishes because it is simmering with subtext. Speaking about his suicidal wife and frightened daughters, or declaring his love for Masha, Frazer’s Vershinin is full of feeling—but that feeling remains almost completely contained. This tension between the aching need for expression and the social imposition of restraint is where the script lives.
Like Frazer, Richard Newman, who plays Chebutykin, an old doctor and sometimes drunk, is admirably at ease with the script’s complexities. Brahm Taylor as Tuzenbach and David Bloom as Kulygin, Masha’s husband, are pleasingly honest, although both could find greater depth. On opening night, Alex Rose (Andrei, the brother) was persuasively understated in the early going but had difficulty rising to the intensity of later scenes.
Collectively, the sisters are a mixed bag. Manami Hara’s Olga starts off fake and moves into touching sorrow. In the early going, Irina’s innocence is a tough sell, and Rachel Aberle has a hard time with it here. Aberle finds more grounded emotion in the second half. Of the three sisters, Emma Slipp’s Masha is the most interesting (Masha is also the juiciest role). Slipp’s portrait is full of credible passion but, for me at least, it’s too overtly expressive. In my experience so far, Masha is most moving when she implodes. In Slipp’s hands, she teeters more obviously on the brink of a breakdown.
Three Sisters contains some of the great character parts of all time. The vulgar Natasha is one of them. In this production, Adele Noronha gives it a stab but, young and inexperienced, she doesn’t have the chops to pull it off. Luc Roderique comes closer to success, although he still misses it, with the eccentrically aggressive officer Solyony.
Through this mounting, you can experience some of the gifts of Three Sisters, but the deep and consistent satisfaction that the play can deliver remains out of reach.
Comments
10 Comments
Hazlit
Apr 5, 2013 at 9:10am
I buy some of the points about the translation. And maybe some of the acting critiques. But "lumpy" Colin? Couldn't you do better than that? Also, I wish you weren't always so personal in your evaluations. If it's merely "I liked it etc..." why not make ME the Straight's theatre critic? One person's subjective reaction is as good as another's.
I (we) depend upon you for theatre history, deep knowledge, etc. I needle you about your critiques because I don't see the knowledge of history I wish you had.
David Bloom
Apr 5, 2013 at 10:57am
I'm not usually inclined to respond to reviews of shows I'm involved with. It's a losing game to be thin-skinned about someone's opinion of our work, and ultimately it really doesn't matter.
I do have to take issue with Colin's preconceptions this case though. He seems to yearn for a more severe presentation than we give, but as someone from a Ukrainian/Russian Jewish background I just have to say, Russians are emotional people. They're not like the Presbyterian Scots who colonized much of Canada.
I think the stereotypical idea of Chechov that Colin is advocating in this review would be better suited to a play about WASPs.
Just a thought.
Amiel Gladstone
Apr 5, 2013 at 1:09pm
I’d like to give some reference. I spent the last while closely studying the script and all the colloquialisms. This review is quoting the English version from Julius West, which Colin prefers because it’s more formal – it’s about 100 years old.
Sarah Ruhl, who did way more research than I, has some great writings on her recent adaptation:
www.sarahruhlplaywright.com/plays/view/THREE-SISTERS-Translated-from-the...
Ruhl’s version of Tuzenbach’s line in question: Seems like a good man. And not stupid. Without a doubt. But he does talk. A lot.
Obviously Colin has his opinions, and that’s fine by me, but from a historical standpoint he is referring to versions of the play that are from a different period, style and culture, and based on all the accounts I’ve read, not at all what Chekhov himself was going for.
Janet Chow
Apr 5, 2013 at 2:01pm
It's always unfortunate when actors/creators respond to reviews online. The review in my opinion was not defamatory, and expressed an outside opinion of work you are of course close to.
I share many of the reviewer's opinions, and found the cast to be particularly poor in some cases though I suppose I would rather that than an all Caucasian cast or only veteran cast if that is the alternative.
This production certainly sounded better than it was, and if that is hurtful to someone reading this, I hope you can take your lumps and learn or ignore these opinions all together.
HeyEveryone
Apr 5, 2013 at 5:44pm
Janet Chow: it is definitely not "unfortunate" for the creators of a work to respond to a review. Art is about dialogue. There is no 'outside' view and everyone (including those in the piece) have every right to partake in the discourse. Each person constantly creates a subjective reality for themselves, whether they are on stage or in the theatre chairs. Theatre is about the interaction between the audience and performers. Why shouldn't that continue after the 'curtain falls'?
Second of all, anyone who goes to theatre today and expects a script that is 100 years old to be used (particularly when it states 'new adaptation' in the show description) should probably move under a rock where the world remains unaffected by reality. The beautiful tragedy of theatre is that it is not possible to ever repeat a performance... there are so many deatils in a live performance that can never be "re-lived". This extends to the script. Theatre would be incredibly boring for everyone involved (performers and actors) if adaptations were limited to past versions of the piece. The fun (and also the challenge) is in attempting to apply the material to a contemporary audience, to engage with the material but to also provide your own creative process.
It's not easy to make adapt a play into a relevant and innovative form.
Janet Chow
Apr 6, 2013 at 5:17pm
HeyEveryone: Your first paragraph is awfully absolute for someone preaching dialogue. Sorry your show got a less than perfect review. My part of the dialogue: I hope you take what you want from percieved negative opinions or engage why someone from outside production might feel that way after seeing the show, instead of absolute defensiveness. Your manner of dialogue is more akin to a bully than an artist searching to engage.
williams
Apr 7, 2013 at 2:24am
I liked this review because it was honest and discussed the weaknesses in the production, not just positive fluff like many other reviews.
To discuss weakness is bold and is something that all productions have. And from a patron's point of view it did not look very professional. Was this show workshopped before? Any readings held? I guess crowdfunding can get you so much -- start up costs paid but no real good production value.
Perhaps the production team can learn from these criticisms and develop a stronger piece for next time, and I do hope there is a next time.
cheers.
Satisfied patron
Apr 7, 2013 at 4:36pm
I have to say I didn't not find this review useful at all. Colin your review seemed more like a "what I would have done" or what you thought the production "should be" as opposed to what te production was. You should stick to critiquing what was on stage a opposed to wishing you were the director. I read te review then saw the show an I enjoyed it thoroughly and it's great to see a classic. I recommend everyone see it, and form your own opinion!
ColinThomasGS
Apr 10, 2013 at 9:25am
Thanks for all of the comments.
And, to be clear: I WELCOME comments from artists. As Amiel, points out, they've spent a lot of time thinking about their work, which makes them worth listening to.
Amiel directed us to Sarah Ruhl's notes, which is kind of him because I think they support my argument. Referring to her own adaptation of Three Sisters, Ruhl writes; "I tried to cleave to Chekhov's original rhythms as far as I was able to." And she goes on: "It is, then, a very faithful translation, phrase by phrase, stage direction by stage direction, comma by comma."
And you can hear the results of her approach. Let’s look at the line we’ve been talking about, Tuzenbach's description of Vershinin. In my view, Ruhl's "Seems like a good man. And not stupid. Without a doubt. But he does talk. A lot" is vastly superior to Gladstone's “Smart. The only thing—talky, talky, talky, talky, talky. Talky"—with hand gestures. The understatement—and clipped rhythm—in Ruhl's version make the line funny. The overstatement—and run-on rhythm—in Gladstone's reduce the line to a slack gag. If we can take Ruhl at her word, and she really did cleave to Chekhov's rhythms, then Gladstone didn't—to his detriment.
I also want to respond to David Bloom’s misunderstanding of my response. I’m not suggesting that less emotion would serve the play better. I’m arguing greater psychological tension, which, in my experience, yields greater depth of feeling.
HeyEveryone
Apr 19, 2013 at 2:28pm
Janet:
For the record, I am not in any way associated with the show. Sorry to hear that you think I sound like a "bully"... I guess you're just seeing what you want to see? Now that you know I am unaffiliated with the production you may understand that I was only responding to your own comments. I found it extremely offensive that you claimed to have a more valid opinion as an audience member. Remember? You said "It's always unfortunate when actors/creators respond to reviews online." Why? I believe everyone's opinions are valid. I am preaching an inevitable clash of opinions between reviewer and involved, the audience and actor, the reader and commenter... I am preaching reality, not a specific opinion. How could I even have one? (I haven't even seen the show)