Daisy #2

I also wanted to share some findings on different productions of the show ranging from 1975 to 1993. (1/3 of our cast has just recently seen the current Broadway production, so they are probably more apt to discuss it than myself.) In particular, I was looking for how the actors balanced the realism and avant-garde nature of Konstantin’s opening play. This is one of the things I am most troubled with right now, how to deliver those lines-because Nina is not a ‘bad’ actress by any account, and I blame any hinderences in my performance to his amateurish writing, I think I must still be believable while letting the ridiculousness of the text still shine through. To this effect, I have given some quotes on how some pretty other popular productions have executed this speech.

* Trinity Reps /Providence, Rhode Island/1993
The director had the actors in constant motion. The gist was, their need was driving them forward and when they no longer had the impetus to move, they had no more reason to live and therefore were considered dead. This is similar to our Objective work, where we as humans, “want….get…want….get….” and when we get, if we get, we DIE. When I think of this scenario, I think of the case of so many elderly people, that are sick and dying in hospitals and wait for their grandkids to finally get married or something, and when they do, they feel as peace to pass on.

“From the moment of Nina’s remarkable entrance in athletic laps around the stage, the cast members whirl, run and embrace. They streak above, around and below the stage like so many comets, stopping only to express their desire before allowing it to drive them on again. When Nina performs Konstantin’s play, what one remembers is not her words but her relentless, pounding motion. The very physical performance makes immediate the urgent lust with which she wants to hurl herself into art and onto Trigorin. Like her fellow characters, Nina is driven by an outside force she cannot control.”

*Guthrie Theatre/November 20 1983/Directed by Lucian Pintilie

“Here the characters display their thoughts in overt physical actions. Treplev and his mother hurl books at each other, he and Nina writhe on the floor, Arkadina bandages her son’s head with a cloth long enough to entwine his whole body like a winding sheet. This is a visceral Seagull, aiming primarily at gut feeling. “

“In the final scene Nina dons a white feathered veil; as she becomes a seagull the stage of the first act returns, she climbs upon it, and disappears into the light over the lake, now turned from a gentle moon into a glaring light aimed right at the audience.”

“The performers pull of a highly successful balancing act between realism and overt symbolism, with just enough stylization to make the imagery of the staging seem plausible.”


*The Manhattan Project/March 1975/Directed by Andre Gregory

“Nina, whole innocence is lost during the course of the play, portrayed her role with complete realism, except for occasional and remarkable lapses. On one such occasion, after commenting that she is panting, she literally panted. On another, when a character stated that he hoped that something was not bad luck, she slapped her knee and spat into her hand.”

“Some actors played their roles naturally, while others emphasized the comic. The desperately unhappy Masha, for example, was played with both the gestures and grimaces of self-mockery and realistically, as when she displayed disgust toward her husband.”

*Mossover Theatre, Moscow/March 1990/Directed by Genadil Trostianetski

“…the production remained the basic idiom of realistic performance….Konstantin’s play in Act I was not the usual dreamy monologue by Nina, but a full-fledged performance-art piece, featuring eerie drums, three male dancer/acrobats, and a Devil character…”

*Theatre Krasnia Presnia/Directed by Pogrebnicho/1990

“During the performance of Konstantin’s play, Nina could not refrain from laughter during her monologue and blatantly shared her guidelines with Arkadina….”

“Although Chekhov’s words were delivered intact, they took on attributes of a minimalist absurdism, which flourished in this strong company’s hands. By deconstructing Chekhov, they reclaimed him for the avant-garde, revealing any zany streak of a writer all too often revered and enshrined.”