... Except Uncle Vanya (Overmeyer). And here's twelve reasons why (in no order):
1) Failure spectacularized. Idleness is raised to the level of high tragedy. As one theory posits tragedy as an infection, so these characters appear to have succumbed at that destructive level with their idleness, and we witness the "havoc wreaked" as Astrov says. As Astrov says on 867 (Senelick) Act Four: "The two of you have infected the rest of us with your idleness. I was attracted and did nothing for a whole month." [See that speech.]
2) Fantastic curtain lines. "This is agony." "The answer is no" (in response to the request to play piano.)
3) "Guns and Roses". Tragically comic use of two iconic props right on top of each other by Uncle Vanya.
4) Chekhov's finest three sentence bios. Consider how each character has one of those paragraphs we've discussed that so perfectly defines their essence. In Vanya they seem particularly sharp, funny and devastating.
5) It's claustrophobia. Chekhov's smallest cast show. And the characters all feel on top of one another. No breaks from each other with random folks wandering in and out. It may take place over time, but it feels as if it's a just an hour. Mamet praises Cherry Orchard because it's great scenes hanging around the devise of selling the orchard. But the characters aren't so lucky here. There is no "Cherry Orchard" or "Moscow" to distract them. One is introduced ("I'm selling the house.") and it's ignored. All they have is each other, and it ain't pretty.
6) Uncle Vanya. He's such a wonderful character. "Good weather for hanging oneself..." So sad and so funny. I saw Joe Chaikin play him, so my heart was immediately one over. But this is a remarkable creation of humor and pathos.
7) "That want to want". There is something going on so fundamental in Vanya. There is this desire to desire again. I love how when the Professor proposes to sell the house it disintegrates into a screaming match between him and Vanya about "what do you want?" When he just said what he wanted. Characters are trying to get back to something so essential to what is the brutal part of their existence.
8) It's non-realistic elements. I know the removal of soliloquy was seen as a move forward in Chekhov's dramaturgy, but I love the direct address here (as well as its meta-theatricality, such as "that only happens in social purpose stories" or some such). It serves the wonderful sense of...
9) "Theatrical inevitability" so well. I love how the drama plays with our sense of knowing none of these relationships are coming to anything so it must be about something else... (See #7).
10) The exchange on 863 V: "To act like such a fool; to shoot twice and miss both times! That's something I'll never forgive myself for!" A: "When the urge to shoot came you should have blown your own brains out." Astrov tells him a few times of how he could've killed himself better. (See #1).
11) Sonya's closing monologue. Again, so sad and funny. One can almost read hope.
12) Not until Beckett is there a play about nothing where there is more going on. Chekhov so perfectly captures the futility of filling one's days by so wonderfully demonstrating how folks succumb to the daily rituals that they imagine are making meaning.
I guess my biggest argument against Chekhov writing a perfect play is that it has been translated from another language into English. Since a writer's greatest tool is his language, I think any translation should be disqualified. As Steve points out, there are some nice linguistic moments here, but there have been so many different translations of Chekhov's work, and we've discussed in class how difficult it is to find a good translation. I can only assume that this is because in Russian, a lot of the language Chekhov used has multiple meanings and therefore cannot be cleanly translated into English.
ReplyDeleteOne argument could be that a perfect play would transcend language barriers if their dramaturgy is strong enough, but without the capacity to study the text in the original Russian, I don't think any of us are qualified to make that call.
Consider translating Shakespeare into Russian, and while the story, characters, and structure remain basically the same, all the poetry and linguistic agility would be lost.
Although The Cherry Orchard will always be my first Chekhov - and you never forget your first Chekhov (especially when you're twelve or thirteen and it makes you cry for a week) - and although the last Chekhov I've read tends to become my all-time favorite Chekhov (until the next Chekhov), I am leaning now most favorably toward Vanya being the most perfect Chekhov, if not the most perfect play. (I hope next week to prove that The Glass Menagerie by Tennessee Williams, who was immensely influenced by Chekhov, is in fact The Perfect Play.
ReplyDelete