|
The post show wasn't as well organised as last time. There was no announcement at the end of the play so some people may have left that were unaware that it was happening!
Ed Stoppard, Martin Constantine (the assistant director), PQ and Simon Lys came and sat down and the discussion kicked off with questions by Martin. However as the others arrived everyone kept clapping. Perhaps it would have been better to have waited for them all to settle as the speakers kept being interrupted. Desmond Barrit, Alex Moen and Sheila Gish arrived but not all of the cast came - no Michael Feast for instance. Shame!
Please remember that these are my memories of what was said and not actual quotes - Unintentionally I may have distorted what was said or meant - if so, SORRY!
Martin said that Chekhov's plays are often known as 'Mood' plays. He asked the actors whether the 'thrust stage' presented difficulties when preparing for the play. PQ answered at length, saying that several of the cast were already aware of the theatre as they were in The Merchant of Venice too which started first. The original version of The Seagull was presented as a farce. The directors felt that on this stage they would need a bold approach - to be brave with comedy and that talking to the audience is necessary. Desmond was asked about only facing half the audience as the stage goes around. He replied that lots of theatres are the same. Shouting is useful and he spoke of being a lighthouse again.
The next question was about the new translation - and the Americanisms. Alex spoke of the actors initial uncertainty but how it quickly came to seem natural and was exciting. Ed spoke of the punctuation - faster moving - not 'English'. He spoke of Philip working with other American writers (eg Albee) and how he was a 'Godsend' in helping them with the 'American voice' and the way their speech tumbles out. Sheila likened it to a machine gun. She then said she only had 10 minutes so if we wanted to ask her anything specifically, to do so soon. Philip then joked 'Did you like sitting on me?' Everyone laughed and Martin said it was a good time to open questions to the audience.
The first lady spoke of being used to Chekhov's plays being dignified - and felt the humour and sex perhaps degraded it here! Philip asked her what her 'benchmark' was for how she thinks it should be done (that would frighten me off from asking any questions!) Sheila said that Stephen was trying to keep it as close to the original Russian as possible. Ed said the characters are not very likeable. He spoke of early productions showing Trigorin as a 'dandy' and Chekhov being fed up with that approach. The characters are real people. There is always the danger that actors want the audience to 'like' their characters. Philip spoke of how the characters are often drunk, having affairs etc. There is a lot we don't know. Chekhov, probably purposely, doesn't introduce the characters - we have to sort out for ourselves who everyone is! Desmond said good productions leave people asking questions and discussing it afterwards.
The next question was about the director bringing in someone else to direct set pieces. Apparently this is not unusual. It happened in Sunday in the Park with George 13 years ago and in The Tempest with Desmond.
A girl spoke of the pauses and asked if they were usual in Chekhov. The response was that yes they are written as stage directions and Stephen (Pimlott) put them in exactly as written but it is up to the director to sort out the length etc. Desmond jokingly said they wanted to get to the pub so kept them shorter! Do they make the audience uneasy? Have the actors forgotten who speaks next? Pauses shouldn't be straightjackets.
Philip emphasised that they have tried to knock the 'Englishness' out of the play.
A lady said she didn't understand Trigorin's laugh at the end (she's not the only one!!) Philip responded that Stephen wanted to create the feeling that the play doesn't really end - Trigorin doesn't believe the news - turns round and sees her - and then what? Leaves a question in the air.
Do the actors make moral judgements about the characters? Should we? Sheila said they 'present' the character that they have created and you make up your own mind. Desmond said they all have their good parts and their bad. You make up your own mind as to which you have sympathy for. Philip said they don't hide what they are - all you can do is try to understand them. Trigorin is a peasant. He doesn't do nice things. Martin said Chekhov was a harsh judge of character himself. He wrote a letter to his brother about how he should behave. 7 points listed - most characters in this play would only score about 2!
Time ran out - and being a Tuesday - the bar was shut, so no carrying on afterwards - shame!
* * *
On seeing The Seagull the first time I was left with a bad taste in my mouth and a jaded view of the society portrayed - SEVERAL(!!) shows later I found myself enjoying almost every second. Perhaps that is because I am unfamiliar with Chekhov and needed educating. I'm sure that I'm not alone in appreciating most things at a second or third sitting - films, novels, music, paintings. I still don't like many (any!) of the characters (except maybe for Sorin) but thoroughly enjoyed being entertained by them and trying to sort them out!
Overall offering such an evening enhances a play several hundredfold as far as I am concerned as to be given insight into the issues faced by directors and actors and glimpsing the world of the writer and so much more that only years of study would uncover, is such a privilege. Thanks to all concerned!
