"The Seagull" by Peter Stein in Moscow

touring theater
The Riga Russian Drama Theater showed "The Seagull" in Moscow on the stage of the Vakhtangov Theater, directed by the famous German director Peter Stein. Narrated by ROMAN DOLZHANSKY.
The screening of “The Seagull” ended a plot that began almost exactly fifteen years ago, in January 1989, when the Moscow theater establishment was literally stunned by the touring “Three Sisters” of the Berlin Schaubühne theater directed by Peter Stein. Like a bolt from the gray sky, the German Chekhov appeared on the stage of the Moscow Art Theater - ensemble, subtle, complex, voluminous, staged broadly and richly, but without vulgarity and aspiration. Hungry Moscow then appointed Mr. Stein as the deputy of Chekhov and Stanislavsky on earth. When a couple of years later he brought the German “Cherry Orchard”, he was still idolized. In the 90s, the director managed to amaze viewers with the Russian "Oresteia" and disappoint with the Russian "Hamlet". And if theater Moscow greeted the Italian “Uncle Vanya” in the mid-90s with the hope of revelation, then it was almost as if it was a farewell to the legend. So they go to a rendezvous, where the end will be put in a long, mutually enriching, meaningful, but exhausted romance.
The director saved himself from the unpleasant moment and did not come to Moscow, citing being immersed in new work. This is correct: Peter Stein is a major, active professional, and not a sentimental retiree. He always approached Chekhov very responsibly, without pathos, patiently and thoughtfully. In Riga's "The Seagull" this careful, personal work of the director on the text is visible. Mr. Stein does not tease the great Russian playwright and does not fall on his knees before him, he examines him. There is no doubt that he turned every line in his head this way and that, that every mise-en-scène is the fruit of a long study of Chekhov’s characters and situations. There is certainly nothing accidental in Stein’s “The Seagull”; the analysis of the play is done strictly “according to school”; there is a director’s explanation for every look and every intonation. The director relies in everything on the text and the truth of life in the given circumstances. You won't find fault. And if there are no revelations in the performance that take your breath away, such claims cannot be made to professionals.
For spectators who do not know the text of “The Seagull” by heart, watching this performance is easier and more interesting than for critics. The latter, willy-nilly, are only engaged in recording fresh little things, comparing them with a thousand and one “Seagulls” seen before. It was, it was, it was... Wait a minute, but Arkadina, frightened by Sorin’s fainting, literally folds into a trunk with her costumes. It's funny. Here Trigorin, a victim of Arkadin's jealousy, throws his famous notebook at the feet of his mistress. Hmm, interesting detail, I should add it to the critic's notebook. Treplev sits on his mother’s lap, it is immediately clear that he is, in essence, still a big child. It will be remembered. Here is another place that was difficult to predict: Treplev makes the suicide attempt, hidden by Chekhov between the second and third acts, right on stage, in front of the audience. This is perhaps the most dramatic and most controversial of Stein's proposed innovations.
Another thing is a huge screen at the back of the stage (artist Ferdinand Vogerbauer). He either stands in the center, then moves to the right and left, showing pictures of nature: an enchanted lake in the first act, a landscape in the second, heavy thunderclouds in the last. In essence, a logical decision for a Chekhov connoisseur: the writer’s researchers have produced many pages on the influence of the environment on Chekhov’s heroes. The invasion of plasma technology, however, did not affect the acting recipe and did not introduce any new conventions into the performance. By the way, Peter Stein also proved that traditions mean more to him than any innovations with the help of the screen: at the beginning of the third act, a huge photograph from a Chekhov play at the old Art Theater appeared on it.
Remembering the old Moscow Art Theater, it’s time to sigh about the acting ensemble. (The surprise from Stein’s “Three Sisters” and “The Cherry Orchard” was all the greater because there were no walk-on roles there at all: show me photos of those performances - I bet I recognize all the characters by sight.) The directing style of “The Seagull” is not a problem with the play , but becomes such insofar as the embodiment turns out to be uneven. There is no need to explain that traditional theater in our time should be the lot of great actors. Riga Russian Drama is a famous theater with rich acting and directing traditions. But even in this troupe, Mr. Stein did not “create” the play; they had to invite Moscow Varangians.
One of the three invitations was made in vain. I can’t believe that in Riga there was no actor who could play Trigorin as colorlessly as Anatoly Lobotsky from our Mayakovsky Theater did. Elena Starodub from the Modern Theater in The Seagull stands out for the better: petty and playful Arkadina confidently feels like an accomplished mistress of life. Of the Riga actors, Yana Sexte as Masha and Leonid Lenz as Dorn look more convincing than others. These are the faces that for me personally will at least complement the gallery of physical incarnations of the heroes of the play “The Seagull”, and will not disappear into it without a visible trace.
And there is only one actor’s face, which will displace almost the entire “gallery” and will now become the face of the character for a long time. This is the actor of the Moscow Gogol Theater Ivan Shibanov in the role of Treplev. In him, Stein found an ideally sensitive partner to embody the essence of his directing. The actor and director remain as if objective, without being carried away by the specific formulated “decision” of the hero. The whole is woven from natural, continuous particulars, from thoughtful and proven details that give rise to a sense of authenticity and dramatic character. Mr. Shibanov spends his last scene very strongly - the explanation with Nina. He bravely and fearfully plays a man who shows that he is about to do something to himself. It is not the pangs of mediocrity that destroy him. Creativity for him is much cheaper than love. Realizing that he is unloved, Treplev slowly shrinks in his chair, hiding his face and stretching his arms down. He is definitely being sucked into oblivion. And then all that remains is to tear up the manuscripts and dump them under the table in one pile with the already unnecessary books. Literature does not save you from life.

Newspaper "Kommersant" No. 60/P dated 04/05/2004, page 22

Authors:

Roman Dolzhansky

Themes:

Why did Konstantin shoot himself?