DVD Anton Chekhov's The Seagull (Broadway Theatre Archive)

So what is "The Seagull?" Short of seeing a great production (e.g., Redmoon's 2003 Steppenwolf production), the best way to experience this beautiful play is simply to read it, as I did:

For Chekhov, traditionally a short story writer, "The Seagull" was his first full length dramatic work. Chekhov struggled with the dramatic form, and this beautifully naturalistic play does suffer from what one might expect from a writer traditionally well practiced in a short story narrative form: surprisingly large parts of the play are episodic and descriptive of action/events.

What makes this a play are the main actions involving Nina, Konstantin, Trigorin, and Irina, with the two main characters being Nina and Konstantin -- and who's story is it? Almost all the way through the play, through the 3rd act, it's a toss up, but given Chekhov's choice to narrate the critical turning point in Nina's and Trigorin's relationship, this is Konstantin's story, and he changes the most -- literally going from life to death.

SO WHAT'S THE PLAY ABOUT?

"The Seagull" is a play about people who are so pre-occupied (with themselves, with what they want, with what they don't have) that they can't seem to listen, empathize, or even begin to understand anyone else -- until (presumably) one of them dies.

ELABORATION:

The Seagull is almost totally character driven: the play lacks a strong plot, so much so that people accuse it have not having any "action." It's actually all action, but because a character's objectives are rarely achieved, the play has the feeling of "going nowhere" -- on purpose (i.e., the characters feel they're going nowwhere). The life of the play is in it's microstructure, i.e., the dialog -- each "beat" is (more or less) people wanting, pursuing objectives, and not listening, seeing, or connecting with anyone else, and -- interestingly enough -- failing to get what they want.

Almost all the characters have a sense of helplessness because they attribute their obstacles to forces or factors beyond their control, and because they feel they can never have what they so desperately want, they get (understandably) highly pre-occupied with their troubles -- but then they fail, fail absolutely, to put all that aside when there's an opportunity to simply listen, take in, and understand someone else. Interestingly, why these characters are like this is completely unmotivated in the text: Chekhov provides no "psychological" explanation for their basic stance -- but this is clearly who they are.

What the characters want, in the main, esp. Nina and Konstantin, is fame and love (respectively). This is how they love: Irina & Nina love Trigorin while Konstantin loves Nina while Masha loves Konstantin and nothing is reciprocated. Further, Konstantin wants to be an artist (a writer) and Nina wants to be an actress. Because the characters are so obsessively pre-occupied with what they don't have, to the exclusion of all else, to the exclusion of listening/connecting with others, by the time we meet them, their lives seem to have ground to a halt.

The world of the characters is put into sharp relief by imagining what would happen if they choose differently, i.e., if they choose instead to listen, to see, to attempt to understand one another: it would be a play about people helping each other achieve their dreams, perhaps by helping each other challenge their own perceptions, and the fact that they do not do this is what Chekhov was, in a sense, parodying. For example, Nina wants to be an actress (partly for not the best of reasons, i.e., fame), and in addition to being in love with Trigorin, she (a young girl) looks to him (a mature older man) for encouragement, guidance, and she's hidden none of this from Trigorin. She finally tells Trigorin:

"Boris Alekseevich, I've finally decided, the die is cast, I'm going on the stage. By tomorrow, I'll be gone...I'm starting a new life...I'm going away, like you, to Moscow. We shall see each other there."

Trigorin is burned out. One almost gets the sense that this could be an opportunity to reinvigorate his own passion by helping/encouraging someone else to follow theirs. Instead -- he takes advantage of Nina.

Trigirin only hears that's she's going to Moscow. He doesn't at all respond to the fact that she's just announced that she's taking a big chance with her life. He's completely oblivious to Nina's central concerns -- with tragic results. Of course, Nina could be smarter -- they could all be smarter -- they could even go further and help challenge each other's myopia, mis-conceptions, and self-defeating behavior . . .

But of course, they don't -- it wouldn't be "The Seagull" if they did.

PRODUCTION CHALLENGES:

The main challenge is making these people likeable (NOT, however, by putting them on Prozac, as in this Psacharopoulos production). They are strikingly human renderings. Chekhov's mastery of everyday, natural dialog is the real power and life of his work. These people are real, and there's great beauty in them. None of the characters are intentionally cruel -- it's as if they can't help themselves; they don't really understand themselves. I root for these characters, willing them to "wake up," to choose differently, anything to avoid what it's probably going to take -- a gunshot at the end of the play.

For the actor, there's a tendency to over-analyze the characters because they are so human, complex, real. However, I think the characters are pursuing, with each beat, quite simple objectives. We don't really have to "understand" these characters in some Freudian sense -- we just have to see them, their actions, their choices. Actors pursuing some carefully chosen, simple objectives will drive the plot, and with Chekhov's language, all the richness, texture, complexity will be readily perceived by the audience.

Actors and actresses run, rather than walk, to be cast in Checkov plays. It's easy to understand why, as he consistently wrote scripts that allow for character reinterpretation. His are also wonderfully cadenced lines, even in translation. His plays have depth and weight to them, even though the surface themes may appear ephemeral. "The Sea Gull" is no exception.

The reason I can't quite give this production four stars (but I would give it 4 1/2) boils down to personal tastes. I prefer my Checkov, as I prefer my Shakespeare, performed by British casts. Something about the training, and the innate ability to get at the essence of a character more convincingly. As American casts go, however, this one is nothing to sneeze at. A look at the roster will show you that these are all actors that have had a marked impact on the Broadway stage. This is a well staged, thoughtfully directed production, and is the best representation available to the home audience.