Review of a Show: Three Sisters

So I saw this production of Three Sisters by Anton Chekhov a little over a week ago on April 18^th. It was done by Ghost Light Productions in Seattle. I will be honest and up front before continuing, I did not enjoy this production. And it wasn’t just because I don’t like Chekhov. In fact, I tend to enjoy most Chekhov. I loved the production of Uncle Vanya we did last year and I liked reading Cherry Orchard in my theatre history class. But this production was not good. I’ll touch on a few things, but I had major problems with most aspects of the show, other that set and lighting for the most part.

First, there was the acting. I’m not saying everyone in the show was bad. I actually liked the woman that played Masha and the man who played Vershinin. They worked very well together as a pair, and I really believed them. But to be quite honest, most of the actors in this show did not handle Chekhov’s language very well. Things just sounded so forced and awkward, like it was a different language other than English. It wasn’t natural. And with Chekhov, the language is extremely important. It conveys class, age, feeling, so much really. And in these shows, people really don’t do a lot. It’s mostly about what they say to each other. So when what they say doesn’t sound right, or we can’t quite grasp the meaning because the actors aren’t fully able to communicate things properly, the audience’s ability to stay engaged in the work goes away. The one time I was incredibly impressed with an actor was in the case of the doctor. He has a very large speech, to himself, looking in a mirror. This actor was able to really commit to the speech, and it was really obvious he fully understood what his character was saying. Other than this moment, his character was a little bit useless, but that honestly has a bit to do with the writing. But this production didn’t really try to make him seem useful at all. He was just sort of…there. It was really odd to me.

Something that I really think did not work was the sound design. They chose to use instrumental versions of modern songs throughout, even though the set and costumes were period and the show was obviously set in the time Chekhov wrote it. I think it would have been cool, had it been done with a purpose and added something to the show. But it didn’t. Instead it detracted. I got distracted by the odd song choices. They didn’t add anything to the scenes or the overall themes of the show. I guess what I could say about learning things as a writer is that I will need to remember that everything can change when a director or designer gets a hold of it. Obviously, in some cases, such as with Fences, the tech work can add to the text and give it that extra kick. Here, it did not work. It distracted me and really didn’t bring anything new to what was happening.

I think from this show, the best thing I can take away is this: if you want something to be a certain way, be specific! In a lot of cases, stage directions are general, and directors ignore them most of the time anyway, so it is better to be as specific as possible if you are really married to an idea. Obviously, the text isn’t everything in a performance. It is important, it is the foundation of the show, but once you add the actors and designers, everything can change. An author can only give so much and then hope the production team won’t screw it up.

Fences: The Live Viewing!

So I realize this is a little late to be putting up, but for some reason I completely forgot to post my blog! Sorry! Better late than never I suppose…

I would have to say that I really enjoyed this production of Fences. Was it perfect the whole way through? No. But then again, no show is perfect. The good moments were good enough though that I was very satisfied with the end result. I will say, I am a person who tends to see more of the good in a production rather than the bad, I guess when I go see a show, I really want to like it! But I still think this was a good production. I do wish I would have seen it before reading it, but I’ll live.

One of my favorite moments in the show that I felt worked better on stage than on the page was the moment just after Troy tells Cory to leave. In the script, all that is there are the words. Troy says, “I can’t taste nothing. Hallelujah! I can’t taste nothing no more” (Act II, Sc. Iv). When I read that, there didn’t seem to be a lot of remorse about “losing” his son. After that, he switches to taunting death. I honestly didn’t have a lot of sympathy for Troy because he seemed to be devoid of love for his son. But in the live production, there was this beautiful moment in this speech where the man playing Troy almost broke down. He cried, his voice broke, and he actually seemed truly upset that his son had just left and his life was crumbling around him. In that one moment, I suddenly felt sorry for Troy. I don’t think I had really connected to him much before then. I viewed him as rather heartless and selfish. But at that moment he suddenly became human. I really felt something for him. It was so…touching. It really showed the difference an actor can make to the overall turn out of a show. It was a really cool moment for me.

Something I debated with a lot of people was the portrayal of Cory. I would agree, I felt the actor in this particular production was not the strongest, but I wouldn’t say I hated him. I thought he actually did a good job of capturing what some might refer to as teenage angst. He had the right amount of whine to his voice, but still took his problems very seriously. I think where he could have improved was in his delivery of those fight scenes. There, he just seemed a bit flat to me. yes, he was angry, but there needed to be more passion. There was a good balance to the things that a teenager find serious, he was angry enough about the football stuff. It was when the family began dealing with more serious problems: Troy’s cheating, a new daughter, etc. I wanted more from Cory here, more when he was really laying into his father, and he lacked something there. Honestly, the actually stage combat portions seemed weak because he didn’t really have a lot of energy. However, what I did love was his work in the last scene. I know a lot of people found him too stiff in the end, but I thought he was perfect. He lacked just the right amount of emotion, so that when he did suddenly break down, it was all the more powerful. I think August Wilson got it right, having Cory become a Marine. It provided an amazing contrast to what he had been like before, and allowed us to see the intense change in him. That moment when he actually broke down during the song and showed the emotion he had been holding back throughout the scene was so much more touching to me. I really loved it.

All in all, a well done production, beautiful set, and they handled the language/dialect very well.

revisions!

I found this article really interesting. I loved actually getting inside a professional writer’s head and learning about his process and how goes about revision. Revision is an area where I feel like I am a little weak. I definitely feel like I am bad at knowing what to cut and what to change, I really do need to go through it with another person and discuss aspects. Yet, there are often little things that bother me, and I just don’t know how to fix them.

One of the things I really liked was when Peter Shaffer talked about his first revision and explained he did not do it because he wanted to sell more tickets. The show was doing extremely well, selling out every night, people lined up around the block at 6:30 in the morning just to get tickets. And yet, he was not satisfied. He didn’t feel the show was as truthful as it could be. He didn’t feel it was true to the characters, and it just wasn’t right. I really respected that. To him, the play wasn’t about selling seats; it was about telling the story that needed to be told. What I would say to learn from that is a writer needs to carefully read a show and focus on each character. For every moment in the show, he/she needs to really ask themselves, “Would the character actually do that? Would he/she say that?” If you can’t answer yes every time, then something needs to change, even if other people love it. It’s more important to be true to your characters and the story than to please your audience.

Another thing I really liked was how many different ways he tried stuff, not just on paper, but in action. He actually had actors doing the different incarnations of the scene before him, for only then could he really see how it worked. I really appreciate that. I think that it’s hard when you are only writing things down to really know if it’s going to read well on stage. So much of a play is determined by how an actor interprets it/how it sounds out loud. When you can’t actually see the physical, you can’t quite know how it’s going to work. So I guess what I would take away is that if you do drastic revisions you need to get actors to perform it for you. You cannot finalize your play until you see the whole thing performed before you. I guess my only question about that is this: it seemed to me that Peter Shaffer was getting his shows performed in full productions with lights, sets, sounds, etc. (maybe I was misinterpreting the text) but I wonder how different it would be to just do a staged reading. I mean, I suppose it is easier for a writer to really understand if the play is going work if it is seen as a full production, but I think it is sometimes just as beneficial to at least see it in a staged reading.

To sum up: don’t compromise just to sell tickets, see it done live! W00t!