theguardian.com
Review: Chekhov's Three Sisters at the Wanamaker
Caroline Steinbeis's production of Anton Chekhov's Three Sisters, currently running at the Wanamaker, features strong performances but suffers from a scattered focus, showcasing the Prozorov sisters' despair amidst lavish costumes and a claustrophobic setting.
- How does Rory Mullarkey's translation contribute to or detract from the overall effectiveness of the production?
- The staging effectively uses the Wanamaker's claustrophobic space to highlight the emotional intensity of the family's interactions. Rory Mullarkey's translation emphasizes repetitive dialogue, underlining the characters' attempts to convince themselves of their emotional states—'I'm happy,' or 'I'm done.' This repetition, while highlighting their internal struggles, somewhat lessens the emotional impact.
- What are the most striking aspects of Caroline Steinbeis's production of Chekhov's Three Sisters at the Wanamaker, and what is its immediate impact?
- Caroline Steinbeis's production of Chekhov's Three Sisters at the Wanamaker is a somber portrayal of the Prozorov family's despair, marked by characters talking past each other and scattered focus. The play features strong performances, particularly from Michelle Terry as Olga and Natalie Klamar as Natalya Ivanovna, whose costumes are noticeably lavish. However, some peripheral characters feel underdeveloped, diminishing their impact on the narrative.
- What directorial choices could enhance future productions of Chekhov's Three Sisters, building upon the strengths of this staging while addressing its weaknesses?
- Steinbeis's direction, while utilizing the intimate setting, fails to fully harness the play's potential. The production's strength lies primarily in the script and individual performances rather than the directorial choices. Future productions might benefit from a stronger focus on unifying the narrative and strengthening the connections between the characters to amplify the emotional resonance.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing is largely negative, focusing on the production's flaws rather than its successes. While it acknowledges moments of humor and strong performances, the overall tone is critical. The opening sentence, comparing the floral arrangement to a funeral, sets a negative tone that persists throughout.
Language Bias
The review uses descriptive language that leans towards negativity, for example, describing the production as "bluntly sullen" and the characters as "downtrodden." Words like "snippy," "wrung-out," and "vile" carry negative connotations. While these words might accurately reflect the characters and tone, more neutral alternatives could have been used, such as "sharp-tongued," "exhausted," and "unpleasant." The repetition of "done" and "happy" is highlighted, correctly demonstrating the repetitive nature of the characters' expressions, but it's presented more as a criticism of the characters' behavior, than their internal struggles.
Bias by Omission
The review focuses heavily on the acting and direction, but omits any discussion of the set design beyond mentioning costumes and the candlelit stage. While this may be due to space constraints, omitting analysis of the set's contribution to the overall atmosphere could limit a complete understanding of the production's success. The review also doesn't mention the audience's reception or critical response beyond the reviewer's own opinions.
Sustainable Development Goals
The play explores themes of social inequality and the struggles faced by individuals from different social classes within a family. The characters