Funny and powerful, with some imperfections that should be ironed out.
*review contains some spoilers for the plot*
The Cherry Orchard is Chekov’s last play and was performed by An Exciting New, directed by Harry Brook. Chekov described it as a comedy, and it certainly had some incredibly funny moments, while depicting the shift in the classes of society. The central focus of the play is Lyubov, the aristocratic landowner who is having to sell her family land, and home, in order to pay the mortgage – she refuses to consider options of splitting the land off and letting pieces, and so has to put it all up for auction. The titular cherry orchard holds great importance in her memories so she cannot conceive of it being felled while she owns it. Lyubov was played by Ilse-Lee van Niekerk with remarkable skill and care; Lyubov is a complex character with a great deal of fracturing emotions and van Niekerk managed to get this across with empathy and realism.
Other particularly stand-out characters, and their actors, included Gaev, Lyubov’s brother, played by Cosimo Asvisio, and Firs, and elderly manservant, played by Joe Rachman. Both Asvisio and Rachman played their roles with total commitment that allowed the eccentricities of their parts to feel authentic rather than the punchline of a joke. While some of Firs’ aging eccentricities are sometimes part of the comedy they are never treated as such by Rachman, who played the part with remarkable consideration. This commitment to the role by all three allowed the audience to sympathise with these figures in their loss, and complete devastation, particularly in the final part of Act 2.
Act 2 sees the sale of the Lyubov’s land, and home, to wealthy Lopakhin who’s family come from the lower classes. This revelation breaks the final resolve of Lyubov, and as van Niekerk collapses to the floor, shaking with sobs, the rest of the cast deconstructs the set around her. This begins with Jules Upson, who plays Lopakhin, taking a painting from one of the walls – as he moves it, the audience can see that it depicts cherry blossom trees. This was a fantastic choice! As the rest of the cast deconstruct the stage, van Niekerk crosses the stage multiple times in great distress and confusion – clearly depicting the loss and anxiety of her character as everything she’s ever known gets ripped from her. The walls of set get pushed back and turned around, until the stage has very little resemblance to the warm, and lavish, home with bookcases that are 100 years old that everybody had been used to. The choice to have the cast members do this, rather than members of crew, allowed the audience to feel some level association with the characters and the loss of land; some of them added to the cause, and others failed to help successfully. Ultimately – Russian society, which all the characters are part of, was responsible for the shift and therefore the loss.
As van Niekerk moves on and off stage, she begins to shed some of her costume, until she is left with messy hair and just her undergarments. Asvisio’s Gaev is also left in only his green coat and underwear. Other members of the cast spend the rest of the play in modern looking clothes, including jeans and shoes resembling Doc Martins, while this suits some of the characters (Will Shakleton’s Yasha, for example), it is not obvious why other cast members are dressed so far out of the era. This “out of place” character clothing choices began earlier in Act 2, with one incident at the ball – Rosie Mahendra’s Anya is dressed in a very slinky slip dress, and her hair is down, for no obvious reason. Nobody comments on the outfit, or the stark contrast to all the other women’s dresses. If they had done so, it could have been used as a choice to mark her out as different and easily adjusting to the modernising times, and those refusing to adjust looking down on her as a woman with looser morals perhaps. However, as this was not done, it just seemed like a misstep in the costuming, that actually lessened the effect of seeing characters like Shakleton’s Yasha in modern clothes in the next scenes.
The only other critique I have of the performance was the extended pauses…that went on far too long. During some dramatic moments in the final part of the show, dramatic pauses are utilised far beyond their ability for effect. There is a pause when van Niekerk is sat in a chair, staring out at the audience over stumps that are used to represent the future of the orchard. She is surrounded by the rest of the cast who are all muttering quietly as they stare at, or through, her, while music also plays in the background. It is a gorgeous, and pivotal, moment of the play that truly got across the loss Lyubov is feeling, and the state of her mental health. However, it goes on far too long. Not only do we wait for the music to finish (which alone would be fine), we also wait and watch while it is only the cast muttering, for a considerable length of time. To the point that I was sat wondering if they had potentially missed a cue or were wating for one that was supposed to come, or that I was supposed to be able to pick up on what the cast were saying. If it was the latter, I could not. This moment was set up so well that if the lights had flipped to black and the cast had set up for bows, I would not have been surprised, or upset, but instead…the audience waited, and eventually the play continued. The excessive length of this moment ruined the emotional effect a little.
The final moments of the play belong, exquisitely, to Rachman – after everybody has left the stage (and theatre!) via the back door in the stage, Rachman makes himself known to the audience. We had been led to believe Firs had been taken to hospital, but instead he had been accidentally left behind. We watch his panic, his continued concern that Gaev is probably wearing the wrong coat (he is), and his decent into such distress that he falls off the chair onto the floor. Rachman continues to push out the final broken lines, until he stills in the lonely darkness on stage and silence falls. This moment creates such pure empathy for this long-serving family servant that I actually muttered my concern under my breath. However, the silence continues, and continues…until members of the audience came to their own conclusion and began applauding. This was a problem because, while this was the end of the play, some people may have missed the chainsaw sound effect that signalled the felling on the cherry orchard and the family connection to the land, and the actual conclusion of the play. If instead of waiting for the cast to make their way back to the stage doors (which is what it felt like was happening), they left Rachman visible on stage for less time, faded to black and cued the chainsaw in the blackness, the audience would have happily waited in darkness for the bows. As it stood, we were waiting for something else to happen, as it had earlier, and it felt less emotionally effective than it should have.
Beyond those critiques, the play was wonderfully performed, if occasionally lacking in sexual and emotional tension between some characters, the costumes were gorgeous, and the set design was beautiful and clever. Using ties to create texture on the backdrop for the outside location were an interesting choice that worked very well. The use of the front of the stage during the changing of scenes was fun and kept the audience engaged. I laughed a lot, and found the performance powerful, it was a good way to spend the evening.