Beautiful

Went to another Chekhov show tonight, "The Three Sisters," Directed/Adapted by Paul Budraitis, and performed by the senior ensemble at Cornish.  It opened last night.  I missed the 7 pm bus, caught the next one, which was running late, and got dropped off no where near the theatre with 10 minutes to curtain.  Ran.  Made it, the ushers came in to sit right behind me, but then it didn't end up starting for five or ten minutes after that.  I'm glad I made it, it's only playing two weekends, and this was the only night I was free.

Beautiful staging.  Minimalist, three-dimensional metal outline of rooms in the house, everyone always on stage, and when they weren't in the scene, wearing big masks over their heads.  I had seen a photo of that earlier, and was wondering if they were going to perform the whole play that way, and wondering how the sound would carry...they played the scenes without them, sometimes they did background vocalizations through them, which created a subdued sound dynamic under the scene being played, which I liked.  I'm still not sure "why" the masks, but I liked them.  I love the staging particularly in Act IV, both with the house shrinking to a box (or a cage) for the sisters (the shrinking of possibilities at that moment?), and the way the duel was staged, the latter of which was unexpected, and so worked really well.  (Go see it if you are in town.)

He definitely has a style: a sense of uneasiness; sound, lighting, mood, set design, staging: dark, minimalist, touching a void; I would definitely recognize his work, even if I didn't see his name on it.  When I saw that show, "Cold, Empty, Terrible," last week, it was so much like his, that I wondered if they'd seen his work.  Kept thinking, "this reminds me of Paul," throughout the whole thing.  (Take that as you will, but there was hardly any dialogue, and not a lot of explanation to hang onto...mind wanders, makes associations.)

I connected more with the play the further along it went, there was more connection to the words, between the actors, and I think with the audience, in Act IV than in Act I, plus, it's the culmination of everything: all they've been talking about "going back Moscow," everything you dream life would turn out to be, or tried to force into being, comes to fruition, and the realization that you don't get your dream, but you carry on (like Nina in "the Seagull.")  Up until that point, life would happen "tomorrow", whenever they could return to "Moscow," and so they stagnate in anticipation of that day, some future when life would be better.  But in Act IV, it comes into "Now." (Spoiler alert, they never return to Moscow, but they do emerge from the box.)

It's late.  I'd like to spend more time with this play.  When I read it, I think, "I want to come back to this," and I thought that tonight as well (and also during "The Man Who Could Forget Anything" show.)  I feel like there's a lot I want to think deeper about, but because I'm also trying to read through it, it stays on the surface.  Things like: what the characters represent, both in context of the play, and in the current climate; what was going on in Russia at the time; cultural context; the idea of finding meaning in doing work; the way Natasha treats people; thoughts about happiness and fulfillment; the difference in mentalities of Russian thought vs US thought and how that affects what you believe your life can be; evolution, and the future, among others.

Maybe I'll write more later, or edit for coherency.  I still have music and a monologue to get solid by tomorrow.  But I liked the show.

Ooh, wait.  Time change, get an extra hour.

Show Poster, Oct 31/L Herlevi  2014