The seagull - drama on three

[smittims]

I like Stephen Mulrine's translations. What I don't like is when they move the setting, and the names of the characters, from late 19th-century Russia, which is the only place where the situations make sense, to somewhere like Sarajevo in the 1990s or Soweto in the 1960s, to give it a political agenda of their own. I see that as exploitation.

[JasonPalmer]

Enjoying it now. Not sure how it would come across if you had not seen a theatrical version though.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Very dense and well worked effects background on this . Very well done I think. Also quite faithful to my dog eared Penguin translation..

[Ein Heldenleben]

Enjoying it now. Not sure how it would come across if you had not seen a theatrical version though.

A lot better than the last National Theatre production I saw which had some rather dodgy acting in it.

[JasonPalmer]

A lot better than the last National Theatre production I saw which had some rather dodgy acting in it.

Oh dear, nothing like a good play with dodgy actors.

[AuntDaisy]

Very dense and well worked effects background on this . Very well done I think. Also quite faithful to my dog eared Penguin translation..

Is that the Elisaveta Fen or Peter Carson translation? (I only have Michael Frayn to hand).

I'm half way through (end of Act 2) and about to stop (esp. after that tinkly music). Probably my problem, but some of the voices are hard to differentiate and the name changes are confusing.

The text is a tad free in places, e.g. "You don't give a toss about me", "charmed the bloody socks off you", "I'm gobsmacked", "I bet my bottom dollar", "ambitious little tart" & "about to puke" (unless they're from Hamlet?)

[smittims]

Oh dear. I''m not sorry I missed it now. I shouldn't like to have heard those lines i Chekhov, or anywhere outside a modern-day TV drama. .

[french frank]

Oh dear. I''m not sorry I missed it now. I shouldn't like to have heard those lines i Chekhov, or anywhere outside a modern-day TV drama. .

I would have nothing against it, for all its 'piquant' language, nor against R3 commissioning and broadcasting it. I do have an issue with it being marketed as 'Chekhov', whose name should, in my view, appear rather low down the advertisement.

[ChandlersFord]

Sounds appalling, but this is what we get nowadays. The classics can’t speak for themselves - they have to be filtered down to be acceptable to Millennials, who don’t ‘get’ dialogue if it doesn’t include its fair whack of effing and blinding.

Not so long ago, it was de rigeur to set Chekhov in rural Ireland. I absolutely hated that particular Philistine trend. In what way is rural Ireland ‘like’ rural Russia? In no way whatsoever, is the answer.

The best place for Chekhov (and the other great dramatists) these days is in ‘the theatre of the mind’.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Sounds appalling, but this is what we get nowadays. The classics can’t speak for themselves - they have to be filtered down to be acceptable to Millennials, who don’t ‘get’ dialogue if it doesn’t include its fair whack of effing and blinding.

Not so long ago, it was de rigeur to set Chekhov in rural Ireland. I absolutely hated that particular Philistine trend. In what way is rural Ireland ‘like’ rural Russia? In no way whatsoever, is the answer.

The best place for Chekhov (and the other great dramatists) these days is in ‘the theatre of the mind’.

I wouldn’t make up your mind without listening to it. I only heard the first 20 minutes but I thought it was excellent with an absolutely outstanding effects soundscape. I didn’t hear any effing and blinding just some modest updating of Chekhovs language which unless we speak fluent turn of the century Russian we are not in a position to really comment on.

[french frank]

I wouldn’t make up your mind without listening to it. I only heard the first 20 minutes but I thought it was excellent with an absolutely outstanding effects soundscape. I didn’t hear any effing and blinding just some modest updating of Chekhovs language which unless we speak fluent turn of the century Russian we are not in a position to really comment on.

I've been trying to steer a middle of the road course on this (as is my wont! ). I'd see a translation as a way of removing an obstacle to a wider appreciation of an acknowledged theatre masterpiece. What we seem to lack - not only on the BBC but also out in the provincial theatres - is the production which also seeks to capture as faithfully as possible atmosphere of the original: location, date, social class. I'm not being prescriptive in saying that's how it should be done, just that it would be good to be able to enjoy something as close as possible to the 'real thing'. I checked on our three local theatres and as far as I could see in the coming season the biggest theatre offered about 50 shows, none of which could be said to be 'legitimate theatre'; the second (Bristol Old Vic) had two Shakespeare plays and no other out of about 30 productions; the smallest seemed to have no plays at all.

This is why the BBC could well fill a gap - as it used to - by broadcasting stage plays from a huge repertoire of world classics. Not adaptations of novels, not 'new versions', not written-for-radio/television plays. There's a vast amount to choose from - Lope de Vega (I have R3's recording of Fuenteovejuna) to Terence Rattigan (ditto A Bequest to the Nation), Schnitzler's Professor Berhardi, Schiller's Don Carlos. They can surely still stand on their own without needing arrangements for harmonicas and steel band?

[AuntDaisy]

... This is why the BBC could well fill a gap - as it used to - by broadcasting stage plays from a huge repertoire of world classics. Not adaptations of novels, not 'new versions', not written-for-radio/television plays. There's a vast amount to choose from - Lope de Vega (I have R3's recording of Fuenteovejuna) to Terence Rattigan (ditto A Bequest to the Nation), Schnitzler's Professor Berhardi, Schiller's Don Carlos. They can surely still stand on their own without needing arrangements for harmonicas and steel band?

Or even "The Duchess of Malfi" with pop music - "This visceral audio production intercuts the music of Jimi Hendrix and Laura Marling"

Radio 3 used to broadcast some cracking plays, many revivals or rarely heard foreign language plays - along with modern & experimental plays. (See Jim's list and notes).

I can remember the days when decent radio dramas regularly went out on Radio 3, sometimes more than one a week; not to mention those on Radio 4 & World Service. If Auntie can't afford to make radio drama (lack of money, will...), why not dip in to the extensive Archives?
The last time they dipped was in 2020 to "celebrate" John Tydeman with a rebroadcast of Tom Stoppard's 1991 "In the Native State". One play!!!


Sylvia Syms died recently, why doesn't Radio 3 rebroadcast Anouilh's 1965 (Home Service) "Point of Departure" to celebrate her life (& Michael Bryant, Robert Eddison...)?

Here's what Raymond Raikes had to say about it in Radio Times:

Point of Departure
All radio producers have favourite productions: Point of Departure is mine. It was given to me to read in 1950 by a colleague who did not care for it and wondered if I felt differently. From the moment I read it - love story, ghost story, Greek myth, all rolled into one - I knew that this was my play. I was deeply moved by this tender and pitiful tale of the agonies of young love, and I was fascinated by the haunted, and to me haunting, backgrounds of the French provincial railway-station in the heat of the Midi, and the sordid Marseilles bedroom with the incessant drone of the trams outside.
I began to hear at once the music of Orpheus, or rather of Orphée: it must be the earthy tones of the French accordion contrasting with the unearthly music-of-the-spheres, the vibrant musical-saw. Then I remembered how, in the legend, Orphée was allowed to bring his dead wife back from the Shades provided only that he did not look back at her until they reached the light of day. I read in the play that he did look back -and at once I seemed to hear the sound that was to become the first use in radio of what is now known as radiophonics.
This was the production that was taken up by a West End management on the morning following the first broadcast - one of the rare occasions the stage has borrowed from the radio. Tonight it returns to the air, as a 'star' revival: Sylvia Syms plays Eurydice to the Orphée of Michael Bryant; with Robert Eddison as Monsieur Henri, the mysterious stranger, and Norman Shelley repeating an unforgettable performance from the 1950 production as the Father.

It might be argued that "Point of Departure" / "Eurydice" was just a modernisation of an old legend, which it is. I'll be interested to see if this 2023 Seagull stands the test of time...

[french frank]

If Auntie can't afford to make radio drama (lack of money, will...), why not dip in to the extensive Archives?

A few of us (can't remember who: DracoM? Andrew Slater? there was a student called Ben something) met with RW some years back and he brought along Abigail Appleton, then chief honcho in charge of R3's Speech & Drama, responsible for the most recent "Golden Age" on R3, 15-20 years ago - including most of my minidisc collection (mistyped Dr Bernhardi in my previous post). We asked her why the drama archive wasn't used, meaning the older productions not repeats of more recent ones, and her answer was that they wouldn't "do" as productions these days - not sure - acting style or what?

Sylvia Syms died recently, why doesn't Radio 3 rebroadcast Anouilh's 1965 (Home Service) "Point of Departure" to celebrate her life (& Michael Bryant, Robert Eddison...)?

Here's what Raymond Raikes had to say about it in Radio Times:

It might be argued that "Point of Departure" / "Eurydice" was just a modernisation of an old legend, which it is. I'll be interested to see if this 2023 Seagull stands the test of time...

I don't think Anouilh's play was an adaptation of an earlier play. Was it? I stand to be corrected It was just a Greek myth recounted mostly fairly briefly within other works. The play is Anouilh's, in this case translated into English. (He called his play about Amphytrion 'Amphytrion 38', suggesting there had been 37 previous versions)

[Ein Heldenleben]

I've been trying to steer a middle of the road course on this (as is my wont! ). I'd see a translation as a way of removing an obstacle to a wider appreciation of an acknowledged theatre masterpiece. What we seem to lack - not only on the BBC but also out in the provincial theatres - is the production which also seeks to capture as faithfully as possible atmosphere of the original: location, date, social class. I'm not being prescriptive in saying that's how it should be done, just that it would be good to be able to enjoy something as close as possible to the 'real thing'. I checked on our three local theatres and as far as I could see in the coming season the biggest theatre offered about 50 shows, none of which could be said to be 'legitimate theatre'; the second (Bristol Old Vic) had two Shakespeare plays and no other out of about 30 productions; the smallest seemed to have no plays at all.

This is why the BBC could well fill a gap - as it used to - by broadcasting stage plays from a huge repertoire of world classics. Not adaptations of novels, not 'new versions', not written-for-radio/television plays. There's a vast amount to choose from - Lope de Vega (I have R3's recording of Fuenteovejuna) to Terence Rattigan (ditto A Bequest to the Nation), Schnitzler's Professor Berhardi, Schiller's Don Carlos. They can surely still stand on their own without needing arrangements for harmonicas and steel band?

The National Theatre Cherry Orchard being streamed during lockdown was set in the “Chekhovian” period as was the recent TV Uncle Vanya . The real problem with Chekhov is usually not the setting or the direction but the lack of actors who really do it. I mean really act that is . And that’s because of the decline in classical theatre production particularly in smaller theatres in the regions where actors can actually learn to project their voice and gesture without hamming it up.

[AuntDaisy]

I don't think Anouilh's play was an adaptation of an earlier play. Was it? I stand to be corrected It was just a Greek myth recounted mostly fairly briefly within other works. The play is Anouilh's, in this case translated into English. (He called his play about Amphytrion 'Amphytrion 38', suggesting there had been 37 previous versions)

You're right, it's not an adaptation, just based on the myth.
(Wasn't that Giraudoux? )