On Sept. 18, Brookline's newest theater company, The Living House Theatre Company, presented Kevin Wery's production of The Cherry Orchard by Anton Chekhov, the company's inaugural effort. The performance is a daring attempt to resurrect social conflicts in tsarist Russia, but despite quality performances from the older members of the cast, the show fails to excite the audience.
Running at the Veronique Ballroom through this past weekend, the company performed Chekhov's masterpiece in an English adaptation by Jean-Claude van Itallie.
Whether you enjoy theater or not, it would be worth the trip down the Green Line to experience the lovely, sophisticated Veronique Ballroom. Upon entering, you'll notices the Tudor architecture with hanging vines on the walls and mythological animals sculpted into the ceiling. Strangely, the audience enters through the stage to reach the seating, which consists of dining tables in front and rows of free-standing chairs in back. For an extra ten dollars, one can dine in elegant cabaret seating for the performance, providing the ballroom with more European style setting - an informal separation between the audience and the stage.
Unfortunately, the play itself was also European and unable to hold the attention span of its American audience. Neither director Wanda Strukus nor the actors are fully to blame - the script lacked an attractive theatrical sense. Despite a multitude of characters and events, nothing memorable happened, or if it did, the audience was too far removed to notice.
Chekhov's play parallels the theme of the division between "old money" and "new money" also seen in F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. Written in 1904, the story revolves around the aristocratic (but broke) Lyubov Andreyevna, her brother Leonid Andreyvich, and the estate of their childhood. Due to a lack of funds and a reticence to build summer homes, the property it is put up for auction (including the beloved cherry orchard). The estate is bought by a wealthy family friend, but Lyubov and Leonid refuse to live with the new owner, who they say represents the "new money" and the "new regime" of Russia (i.e. the revolutionaries of the Russian revolution). This division was the most tangible message the audience could latch on to in trying to identify with the characters.
Sadly, none of the other ideas or subplots capture the hearts or minds of the audience because the director fails to sculpt the key moments. After seeing the play, it was difficult to pinpoint certain moments or lines because the intensity level never rose or fell. In a play, if the actors treat every line like the most important and exaggerate every movement, then the audience will not believe the reality of the story. Rather, the experience is comparable to watching a soap opera. On the other hand, by not accentuating any of the actions or words, a play will fall flat and leave an audience bored. This production almost fell into the latter category.
In defense of the director, the space on stage was balanced at all times, which was a thorny task with so many actors on stage for most of the performance. When too many characters are present, the audience usually faces the dilemma of a split focus. Yet, while the dialogue did not always include everyone onstage, there was almost never a battle for the audience's attention. And, in fairness, some of the "stage pictures" mentioned to be absent from the performance may have been present but nullified by the dullness of the production.
Aside from the directing, the acting was generally impressive. Half the actors were either college students or recent graduates from a Boston-area school, and on the whole, their performances fell short of their older peers. Andrea Squires, one of the mature actresses, portrayed Lyubov, the mother of two girls who returned to live with her daughters and brother at the estate in Russia following her stay in Paris. Squires showed great depth in her role by exploring the character's childlike behavior without losing the other side that speaks from experience in love and money.
Another mature actor, Rick Winterson, played Firs, the old servant who has lost most of his coherency but retains a sense of duty to his masters. Although his character served as the play's "old fool," Winterson provided comic relief without playing to much into the stereotype.
Among the younger actors, recent Tufts graduate Andy Roth's performance was particularly impressive. Roth played Yermolay Alexeyvich, a friend of the family who comes from a peasant background but worked hard to become a wealthy merchant. Roth's portrayal captures the businessman who obsesses over time but has not the first inkling of social refinement and does not understand why his aristocratic friends refuse to build summer homes on the estate.
Chekhov wrote the play to depict the transition from tsarist Russia to the next era. This theme, however, makes it difficult for an American audience to relate to his story at the turn of the 21st century. The cast and crew of The Living House Theatre Company put forth a valiant effort in performing this play 100 years after the fictional events took place. And in some ways, they succeed in making the play come to life. But the play's failure to engage the audience in both mind and heart overshadows the highlights of the production.
