Theatre
Three Sisters (Bloomsbury)
A memorable experience
Christopher Edwards
Mike Alfreds has established himself as one of the best ensemble directors in the country. His reputation' has been made, principally, through his own touring com- pany Shared Experience and its wide and interesting repertoire of European classics (Gogol, Marivaux, Schnitzler), adapta- tions of novels (Dickens and Waugh) and numerous pieces created by the company itself. Anyone who was lucky enough to obtain a ticket for Alfreds's Cottesloe production of The Cherry Orchard will undoubtedly agree that it was a beautifully made piece of theatre. It was also a revealing interpretation of one of Chekhov's most famous works as it under- played what the English, at least, regard as the play's central `Chekhovian' properties — the sighing mood of loss and transience. Instead it dealt dispassionately and even toughly with the loss of the estate. You felt that Lopakhin was the most dynamic, almost the central character in the drama and that even the eternal student Trofi- mov's perspective was less undercut than usual by the play's ironies. It was a thrilling evening and marked the highest achieve- ment to date of the Petherbridge/McKellen actors' company at the National Theatre. Unfortunately for those who missed it, their only remaining chance to see The Cherry Orchard is to follow the company to Chicago in the next few weeks. As a consolation, however, the same director s production of Three Sisters, with his On company, Shared Experience, is showing at the Bloomsbury Theatre (Gordon Street, WC1) until 3 May. Although the cast is not so distinguished on an individual level as the Petherbridge/McKellen com- pany this is as good a piece of ensemble acting as you are likely to find. What follows is a slightly limited account of the evening as I was obliged to leave reluctant- ly at the interval with a coughing fit. , Three Sisters was written before The Cherry Orchard and there is less scope for any reinterpretative approaches to its vi' mon of its characters. You might, in all case, feel that the author's tender honesty towards his characters is quite eloquent enough in this work. They are infuriating and yet they wring the heart with the!! helplessness and hopelessness. .Of all has plays this perhaps is the one where You sense that the description of Chekhov as the 'artist of farewells' holds most true; dice, fates of Olga, Masha and Irina are indeec farewells to youth, to the past, to hopes and to loves. And, of course, farewells to Moscow which, in their dreams, represents all these things. The production abounds with those key moments when pause, pace and tone .colaii bine to create something psychologleail significant. Early on when the arrival of the' handsome Vershinin has lifted Masha gloom her infuriating schoolmaster bal band, Kulygin, arrives. Conversation Oil; Vershinin has opened up new vistas of expectation for all the girls, espearYt Masha who will fall in love with him, °II) Kulygin's arrival and his crass present `s . Irina of a history of the local school serv`,„, instantly to close down all horizons and riJ, remind them all of their narrow provInela ity. Typically in Chekhov you feel .f°' Kulygin as well as cringing at Milli Another beautifully wrought mot°. occurs after Irina's name-day lunchet She is given a spinning top by one of the soldiers and it is joyfully released onto the dining-room floor. The sound it ell1,1:1 a e°1_.,; makes your flesh creep. It is ominous noise like the wintry sounds " later hear whistling down the stove and which interrupt and chill conversation. Irma, 20 years old and looking like a flower, shudders too. The next time we see her she is working at the telegraphy office, her hair drawn tightly back and her bloom quite gone.
I imagine that the second half develops the atmosphere of the piece into a moving climax. The characterisations were all strong, especially John Price's Vershinin and it was very frustrating not to have seen the end. I am confident, though, that it is a production well worth seeing.