Comparison Of Chekhov 'And The Cherry Orchard'

1273 Words 6 Pages
Register to read the introduction… Serban has attempted many of Chekhov's plays that include The Sea Gull, Three Sisters, Uncle Vanya and The Cherry Orchard. In 1977 when Andrei Serban attempted his own production of The Cherry Orchard, it was a completely different interpretation to Stanislavsky's. Serban's version was an artistic analysis of the Chekhov script that was made for a contemporary audience, instead of the renowned Chekhov simplicity of telling the story. Serban's set was designed to create an emotion-evoking atmosphere. The stage was white with scattered furniture and did not resemble the original vision of Chekhov's setting. Serban focused on imagery and relied on this to tell the story to the audience, not chiefly relying on dialogue. Serban was breaking away from Stanislavski and resembling the unpractical styles of Meyerhold. The adaptation of Chekhov's script by Serban received mixed reviews and some believed that he had radically revived a classic text and others thought that it was a great disrespect to Chekhov and his traditions. Despite the reviews Serban leaped to fame and consequentially attempted two other Chekhov masterpieces. The differences between his version and Stanislavsky's can be compared by the reviews each received. Chekhov felt disrespected that Stanislavsky tried to convey the meaning in his script and he felt that he failed to do so. The idea that Stanislavsky …show more content…
Or is the art of the director is to radically re-interpret the classic text in order to make it relevant for a contemporary audience? Stanislavsky and Serban's direction styles both created completely different variations of The Cherry Orchard but there will always be advocates and opponents to each style. There are traditionalists and new wave theatre buffs who will oppose each other's ideas on theatre but the director has become the artist of a performance and will choose what direction the performance will take. Stanislavsky's interpretation was blasted by the playwright and this questions the role of the director, have their own ideas and values smothered their ability to stay respectful to a script? This is always a danger if the director is looking for the meaning the playwright intended to put across. But if all directors were to radically alter scripts would great plays be ruined by current day values? If a director is to radically re-interpret a script to make it relevant to a contemporary audience there seems to be an element of freedom for the director, he can make the choices and can create a performance in a range of ways. The director can choose what meaning he wants to convey to the audience, what meaning the set will have for the piece, what feelings the characters put across to the audience. An example of this is in Stanislavsky's version of The Cherry Orchard when he

Related Documents