Chek- * cough *

I am one of those people who really does not like to just go to a show once. There are too many elements that I like to see- and one viewing is hard for me to accomplish it in. My director brain takes the first show to analyze how the script was adapted for the stage, staging and character choices, what themes were brought out, what I would have done differently, what I never would have thought of -but is pure genius, and a whole other array of very distracting thoughts. My second viewing is usually tech based- where the lights are, what about the set works, what the costumes do, etc. If I can- my third viewing is usually a 'Turn it all off Claire' viewing where I just sit back and enjoy the show. And any subsequent viewings depend on my mood. Rather maniacal of me- but what can I say. I love this business. And the reason I do is because there is no right or wrong way to do it. Well... as long as you aren't doing A Chorus Line (but that is a whole other set of issues there).

Watching this show was a very interesting experience for me. Mostly because I would have done so many things differently as a director - but I'm not sure that my different choices would have actually improved the show. It is mostly that, when I read the script, I had an entirely different perception of the show, how it should be staged, what the characters were like, etc. But that made watching this production all the more fascinating. Because there is no right or wrong- I love seeing the other views and other perceptions. For example- to me all the more 'secondary' characters are there for comedic relief. To emphasize even more the class structure that the family lives in, to create a sense of everyday life, and to give the audience something to laugh at. But with this version- those characters (with the exception of Waffles) were not given the comedic role. It took me a couple of viewings to become alright with that fact-but once I did, I found the choice to be compelling. Why does the old nurse have to be crazy and hilarious? Why should Yefim have to submit to the stereotypical idiotic farm hand? While I still believe that the script calls more for that comedic relief- it was an interesting choice to see it done more straight.

I think that something a playwright needs to realize before going into the process is that their vision is really not at all what will be up on stage. Maybe the first time- if they are there to oversee the project - but never again. Sure, some things will be the same. Uncle Vanya will always shoot at Astrov on the stage and will always miss (for example). But the way he shoots, where he misses, what every one's reaction will be, what that does to the movement of the piece- that will never be the same again. It will be how the director sees the motion, how the set designer creates the space, how the props mistress (or master) chooses the gun, how the actors see their characters. It is completely out of the writers hands. I think that would be difficult for me - as I am rather obsessive about control- but I think it is also a very good thing. It keeps a piece alive and vibrant. I think one of the main reasons that Shakespeare is still so popular today is because of how easily his work can move between eras- how each time you see it, the show can be completely different. In Scene Design right now, for example, there are about six different designs for Midsummer, and each one will be a completely different and unique show. Uncle Vanya may not lend to such adaptability as Midsummer does- but there is a timelessness to it. You could very easily change the time period to today and it would still be relevant. I think one of the good marks of writing is that it can stand up to the test of time. I mean- obviously you couldn't stage Amadeus in any other time period- but its themes and the story are still relevant (although this is a conversation for a different post). Uncle Vanya has the kind of relevancy that allows for a lot of playing room in the directors imagination- that a playwright needs to be prepared for.

Chekhov is one of those playwrights that people seem to either love or hate. I'm part of the former category. While, yes, the structure of plays like Uncle Vanya are dreadfully frustrating (no climax, no point, a regular slice of boring life) they are given excitement by the incredibly detailed character work Chekhov puts into this plays. Each character is a distinct and intricately complex character. From Uncle Vanya right down to Yefim. To me, this proves that if the characters are amazing- a lot of people won't realize that there is not plot and, kind of sort of, no point. But the characters give the play a point. They bring up the stakes and show how even every day life can be exciting in its boredom. To me, characters are the center of all good theatre.