The Cherry Orchard opened last Thursday to a sizable audience. While the play was okay, the selection was poor for the season. The subject matter was extremely depressing for a season when days getting shorter and gloomy become the norm; the play was ill-placed in the theatre lineup. This selection in the spring would depress fewer people.
I overheard one audience member say, “This play is so depressing! It is so hard to watch. It isn’t the performers’ fault, just the time of the year.”
Anton Chekov’s play is about a family waiting to discover if they will lose their house and orchard after failing to keep up interest payments on their mortgage. The family returns home after a prolonged stay in Paris. They quickly realize that any and all money they had is gone, and the house is being put up for auction.
One of the most recognizable themes of play is that problems arise through clinging to the past instead of preparing for the future. This is of historical importance because Chekov wrote this play for a Russian audience on the verge of revolution.
The character Peter Trofimov acts as Chekov’s personal mouthpiece for idealism and change. At one point in the play, he places himself above human emotion, noting that he and Ana, who he is affectionate towards, are “above love.”
Trofimov spouts line upon line of philosophical progression but is mocked by some of the characters for not having graduated university even though he has been there several years.
The emotional demand of the script on the actors proved to be the biggest challenge of the play. Unfortunately, these emotional instances were often overacted and failed to produce a reaction from the audience. One of the biggest demands came from the character Lyuba Ranevsky who ran the gamut of emotions. She did, at one point, produce real tears in a touching display at the climax of the plot. However, even she faltered into overdone productions in place of subdued and weighty displays of emotion. The Cherry Orchard required much more of the latter.
The character that the audience clearly responded to best was the elderly servant, Firs. A well-acted and comedic break from the depressing play he was written into, Firs allowed the audience to laugh and reconnect to the action taking place onstage. His interjections and senile ravings generated hearty chuckles and reminded the audience of the past this family so desperately clung onto.
One of the best experiences of the night was the set design by Rachel Finn, a senior in the College of Communication. It is great to see that the university utilizes its student talent and encourages large solo projects to those who prove capable of the challenge.
The stage was sparsely set and largely representative – allowing the audience to create their own version of the estate. Coupled with the lighting design, the mood was well-set, and there was a clear sense of nostalgia associated with the large property the family is on the verge of losing.
The greatest scenic feat came in the last seconds of the play when the cherry orchard was artfully and symbolically chopped down. Overall, this play was not the most entertaining of the season and sometimes lagged in action and acting, but it was a challenge for all involved. The theatre department deserves praise for at least attempting this feat, even though it faltered a bit.
Popularity: 17% [?]
