A Classically Superb Spectacle

A true test of ability comes in the challenge to perform the work of an iconic playwright well – to not befuddle his or her brilliant contribution with vulgar or poorly-placed idiosyncrasy, and to, at the very least, provide a just tribute to the genius of its legendary creator.

If a company has the great fortune to captivate its audiences as opposed to simply satisfy, then it has truly earned the right to theatrical pride.

For the duration of the month, the respective players at the T. Schreiber Studio can safely hold their costumed heads high as they accomplished this tremendous feat with seeming ease. This should be attributed to director Terry Schreiber, perhaps, who took on the colossal challenge of staging such a famously complex play.

At the turn of the twentieth century, the iconic and inimitable Anton Chekhov wrote a perfect play, in spite of the fact that it does not execute his most famous technique – Chekhov’s Gun. Each character is at once compelling and flawed and conflicted – yet this is conveyed through a touch of subtlety and class often lacking in many modern attempts. They carry within them great selfishness and pride, and yet are almost poignantly sympathetic. They spurt beautiful lines of human freedom and equality, yet often fall into the traps they rally against. Throughout all this, it simply sizzles with philosophy, as it explores the notions of freedom, life, love and happiness. All the while, it makes superb use of symbolism while maintaining brilliant wit.

For those not entirely familiar with it, “The Cherry Orchard” was Chekhov’s final play. Inspired in part by the loss of his own beloved cherry orchard in his youth, the legendary dramaturge planned it as a satire of the Russian upper-class in the wake of the emancipation of the serfs.

His equally famous compatriot, Constantin Stanislavski, however, staged it as a tragedy, much to the chagrin of its creator. Consequently, this particular play became especially difficult to produce due to its rich and at times contradictory nature.

It begins with a wealthy and decidedly self-made son of a serf, Lopakhin (Jamie Kirmser), being awoken by his ladylike maid, Dunyasha (Ina Marie Smith), after falling asleep in his effort to wait up for the train containing the owner of the estate.

Her name is Lyubov Ranevskaya (Julie Garfield) and she has just come back from a five-year stay in Paris, with her daughter Anya (Laine Bonstein), Anya’s governess Charlotta (Julia Szabo) and her valet Yasha (Parker Dixon) in tow. The estate, run by Ranevskaya’s adopted daughter Varya (Aleksandra Stattin), has fallen into debt, however, and the family is unable to gather the required funds to restore their former glory.

It begins in May and is due to be auctioned off in August. ربح الاموال Throughout, various other characters are introduced, including Lyubov’s brother, Gaev (Rick Forstmann), the deeply ideological Trofimov (Marcus Lorenzo) and the estate’s committed footman, Firs (Peter Judd).

One of the most difficult aspects of staging a foreign play rests in cultural interpretation. Just as directors and actors in other countries may miss certain inherently American aspects of Tennessee Williams or Arthur Miller, professionals in the United States may miss certain intricacies that are thinly woven into the culture. What was especially amazing about Garfield’s performance was her accurate portrayal of a Russian woman. There was a certain essence about her – in her movements, her timbre, her demeanor – that embraced and embodied the culture. She crossed in the manner of Eastern Orthodox Christians – right to left. Though many others did not follow this detail – and it truly is not that important that they did not – Garfield’s adherence to this perceivable technicality was highly indicative of her level of dedication to her character and the play, in general. Her Ranevskaya was at once delightfully charming and infuriatingly spoiled – an ironic behavior for a woman who suffered so much in her life. During certain moments, she seemed to channel Vivien Leigh’s breathtaking performance as the eerily similar Blanche DuBois; at other times, she was her own unstoppable, unmovable force – a raging tornado of talent and theatrical grace.

Bonstein was utterly engaging as the idealistic and innocent Anya, presenting equal appeal to her audience through her adorable laughter and somber tears. She could hardly be written off as silly, however, since the role of Anya is certainly serious and Bonstein carried that challenge with poise. Stattin’s contribution as her sister served as a marvelous foil for Anya’s zeal; as Stattin grazed a number of emotions – each delivered with subtlety when appropriate and explosive vigor when otherwise necessary.

Though passionate, Lorenzo often placed emphasis on the wrong word, which at times served to distract from his brilliant speeches, the writing for which is the best in the play. He was, however, commendable, since the deeply complex role of the quiet philosopher quite conceivably presents one of the biggest challenges in the entire play.
With a penchant for comic relief, Forstmann, Judd and Szabo were often responsible for some of “The Cherry Orchard’s” most uproarious moments, though often carried with a darker and sadder subtext. كيف تربح المال من النت Judd, especially, possessed such witty magnetism in his delivery that his very appearance later in the play drew laughter in anticipation of his forthcoming jest. However, as the depth of his commitment to this decidedly ungrateful family became clear, his role almost became tragic – a transition that Judd carried reverently.

Each participant of the play’s primary love triangle – Dunyasha, Yasha and Yepikhodov (Alec A. Head), who is deemed “Mister Disaster” by his contemporaries for his accident-prone nature – consistently delivered ample entertainment. Dixon, especially, bearing an ever-present grimace, both calculating and deviously arrogant, was a joy to watch.
Aside from the marvelous acting, the task of stage design was handled absolutely impeccably – especially that of the woods at the end of the second act. It seemed as though each part of the large apparatus was utilized to its fullest extent, providing a truly marvelous and useful decoration.

Although beautiful and truly worth seeing, the performance was not without flaws; they were, however, those that required familiarity with the culture to notice, so they would hardly ruin an evening of theatre. Aside from not all characters practicing the correct method of crossing in Eastern Orthodox Christianity – the dominant religion in Russia – much of the music sounded distinctly more Jewish than Russian – especially the first and last pieces – as did one of the dances. This could have very well been a stylistic choice, as a memory of a Jewish band was mentioned during the play, or it could have been an oversight. If it is the latter, it is minor in comparison to the gargantuan effort of staging such a wonderful production of this difficult play.

Along with the zealous humor, the true beauty of Chekhov deals with his ability to capture the human spirit. During a conversation late in the play, Gaev tells Trofimov that the great philosopher Nietzsche would have approved of forgery. In response, the idealistic student skeptically asks his interlocutor if he has even read any of Nietzsche’s work. كازينو ٨٨٨

As the overture to “The Cherry Orchard” played, there were confident whispers among the audiences of the balalaika’s – a traditional Russian instrument – predominance in the song, even though it had hardly been present – if at all. Though more than a century had passed since this particularly sensitive and theatrically-inclined doctor first penned the words to what would become his most popular play, the lesson remains the same: We are still entirely insistent on carrying on the falsities of the intelligentsia of old, of which we are all guilty. We still cling to a desire to appear a certain way – more respectable, intelligent, refined – when in reality we must simply embrace our authenticity, work and be free.