The Sea Gull

Years ago I went to a production of The Cherry Orchard in which a friend of mine was appearing. Watching The Sea Gull today I was struck by the fact that once again Chekhov used a rural setting for a play with a group of characters away from the hustle and bustle of Russian urban life.

That's where it ends though. In The Cherry Orchard the group were aristocrats who were bemoaning the fact that revolutionary forces were getting a bit close to home and they might have to leave their well ordered lives for health reasons. Here they're celebrities of sort, possible aristocrats within their own set. Two of them have followings. One is James Mason a writer of some note although he freely admits he has not the acclaim of a Tolstoy. The other is Simone Signoret a noted actress of the day who also has not the acclaim of a Sarah Bernhardt or an Eleanora Duse.

Like Bernhardt, Signoret has a son in David Warner who can't find his place in the world or I should say her world because circumstances dictate he be part of it. He's hopelessly in love with the neighbor's girl Vanessa Redgrave. She in turn would like to be an actress, but more than that would like to be a groupie for James Mason whom she regards with awe. She gets her wish.

As for the celebrities there's a lot less to Mason and Signoret than meets the eye. It ends badly for the younger generation.

Years before the mid 20th Century Chekhov discovered and wrote about the cult of celebrity. The film itself has some dull spots and Sidney Lumet has done better with more modern subjects. Still the cast is great and the best accolades go to David Warner whose character revolves the story The Sea Gull.

Too long and philosophic for the modern movie viewer. Dramatic monologues that try the patience. Maybe great for Russians of Chekhov's day when people had plenty of time to look into their tea leaves. Hard to believe the talented director of the movie came up with this. overstuffed more than the sea gull in the play. I felt like a philistine writing this, but that's my reaction.

I am Russian and this is almost the best "Seagull" I've ever seen. Period.

Everything looks lively and natural. Sometimes Chekhov's plays when staged give you a sense of irreality and feel unnatural, but Lumet's "Seagull" really can make you feel the essence of Chekhov's drama and even explain its popularity if Chekhov is not your favourite writer. Costumes and everything else - houses, furniture etc. - are beautiful and authentic, something you rarely can expect from an American movie about Russia. The only real disadvantage, to my mind, were love scenes in the first part of the movie, - they were absolutely out of place here and presumed a reading of certain scenes the author never thought of.

Sidney Lumet has a mighty reputation for adaptations of classic theater to the screen. "Long Day's Journey Into Night" remains something of a masterpiece while "Twelve Angry Men", "A View From the Bridge" and "The Fugitive Kind" are works of distinction. (I have intentionally passed over "Equus" which to my mind was a largely misguided effort).

Like "A View from the Bridge", "The Sea Gull" seems to have been absurdly banished to oblivion. It seems incomprehensible that such a fine film of Chekhov's classic play should deserve such a fate, especially when so many mediocrities are rereleased. The stellar cast alone is reason enough for making "The Sea Gull" available..

Lumet does great service to Chekhov in thankfully preserving the play. The cast is astonishing with all turning in finely tuned and thoroughly convincing performances. Vanessa Redgrave's Nina is luminescent and David Warner brings to Konstantin a palpable intensity. As many critics have noted, the casting of Simone Signoret as Arkadina is problematic since her heavy accent is somewhat out of place, especially when her brother is played by Harry Andrews. English does not come easy to Signoret and some of her speeches are slightly clumsy. Still, overall this does not spoil the film. Arkadina is a prima donna actress and Signoret brings such presence and charisma that one soon forgets the accent.

What more could you ask when a classic play is beautifully filmed, wonderfully acted and superbly directed ? That it should be made available to all who value art.

Don't be fooled by the other positive reviews. It's shocking how so many talented people could so egregiously misunderstand Chekhov and his intentions in this play. He wrote a comedy (despite the shocking ending); a satire on artistic pretensions, artists, and those who refuse to take responsibility for their lives and actions. This film succumbs to every cliché about the gloominess and static inertia that Chekhov supposedly deals in. Despite some efforts that aren't half-bad (Mason isn't bad, but is decades too old, and Redgrave tries her best), this film never misses an opportunity to take a misstep and do exactly the wrong thing.

In a word, awful.