1 of 1

Write now Article Tools

Page 2 of 2

main, especially 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 no one's love 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 characters in a play can be put into sharp relief by imagining what would happen if they choose differently, i.e., imagining what would happen 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.

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. While they're probably & understandably depressed, we never see them give into it. They struggle mightily, and they are strikingly, humanly rendered.

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, the characters are simply pursuing, with each beat, simple objectives. We don't really have to "understand" these characters in some Freudian sense - we just have to see them, their actions, and their choices. Actors pursuing some carefully chosen, simple objectives will drive the plot, and with Chekhov's language, all the richness, texture, and complexity will be readily perceived by the audience.

Learn more about this author, Christopher Calliope.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

• << previous page
• 1
• 2

Add your voice

Know something about Theatrical analysis: "The Seagull" by Chekhov?
We want to hear your view. Write now!