The Cherry Orchard

Michael Cacoyannis seems strangely reluctant to tell this story in a straightforward, understandable fashion. This ridiculously edited film rates a 7 out of 10 only because it does, in its idiosyncratic way, convey something of the story of a Russian woman, of the landed gentry, fallen on hard times, who is desperately seeking to preserve the ownership of her estate, on which is an ancient and beloved cherry orchard. If she is forced to sell, the orchard will be cut down and the estate "developed" into "affordable housing". So what else is new, eh?

By all, this is the choppiest editing and directing style I have ever encountered. Chekhov's play is certainly not constructed this way. There is no effort to introduce characters in an orderly fashion so that one may get to know who they are, and what their relationships and motivations are. Some of this eventually emerges if you are patient and alert enough, but don't blink! Some of the cast work is excellent. They must have been frustrated, though, if they knew what kind of editing would appear in the final cut.

From the previous reviews I gather that this is where the elite meet to bleat. I wish those who are so afflicted by nearly everything in this lovely film could spell a bit better. I have seen several stage versions of this play, and I have read the play, so I was prepared to see the film. I agree with whoever it was who said it would appeal best to those who had seen or read the play and that is true. Not every film is for the popcorn crowd. I loved the atmosphere and that is something you cannot get in a stage play. How can acres of cherry trees in blossom be offensive to anyone? That falling-down hunting lodge seemed just right for that decaying family. The costumes were beautiful. There is not a single character in the story whom anyone could actually like, it's true, but by the end of the story you have been told so many things about them, if you pay attention, you can believe in them, which is better at times than merely being able to 'like' them. I believe Chekhov would have approved it.

Anton Chekhov's last play 'The Cherry Orchard' is one of his best. Other favourites being 'Three Sisters' and 'Uncle Vanya'. It is a masterclass of complex characterisation and mood, while Chekhov's characters were not what one considers "likeable" they are complex and real and he was a master at creating vivid atmosphere. There are plenty of fantastic moments in Chekhov's text, his writing style was heavily criticised and scorned at in his day but it is not a problem with me, other than taking a bit of time initially to get used to the wordiness.

To me, any film or television adaptation that dares go near Chekhov (incredibly difficult to adapt and has been adapted and performed to variable effect) deserves some kind of pat on the back. This version of 'The Cherry Orchard' has a good deal going for it, such as the lead cast and the production values, but doesn't quite come together due to primarily the pacing and that the tone of the film didn't feel right with too much of one tone and not enough of the other.

It does succeed in quite a lot of areas. The lead cast are very good, Alan Bates is very well cast in the kind of role he did so well and does intensely fierce and tortured incredibly well in a way that isn't overwrought. Charlotte Rampling also gives a thoughtful, committed performance that has fire, poignancy and elegance without being melodramatic. Michael Gough and Katrina Cartridge stand out, particularly Cartridge.

Visually, this version of 'The Cherry Orchard' is beautiful. The costumes and settings are truly sumptuous and the photography doesn't come over as static and is just as elegant. While having issues with how it was used, the music itself is hauntingly melancholic and fits very well with the tragic aspect of the story. It does help that Tchaikovsky, which it is heavy in, is one of my favourite composers and with him being a very troubled man in real life which is reflected in a lot of his music he was an ideal fit. The ending is also very moving, the play's ending itself is one of the most moving there is and it takes a lot for it to be ruined, something that none of the versions seen of 'The Cherry Orchard' have done.

However, 'The Cherry Orchard' is an example of a film that finishes a lot more strongly than it starts. Quite a lot of the pacing for my tastes is very dull, especially the truly tedious prologue that doesn't really say anything. Sometimes one sees a film etc that has a scene that comes over as neither interesting or necessary, and the prologue here is one of those films. It also suffers from the opposite issue the generally quite impressive National Theatre Live production had, which succeeded brilliantly in the comedic elements but under cooked some of the drama. Here the dramatic moments have moments where it is very moving and melancholic, but as an adaptation no matter how faithful it is in detail it comes over as over-serious from the satire being pretty much missing.

Did find a lot of the supporting cast to be too hammy, that is including the usually fun to watch Frances De La Tour (one of the worst offenders in my view actually). While the music is beautiful, it perhaps could have been used less and not emphasised the mood as much as it does. It is stodgy in direction too, especially in the early stages, and even for a wordy play the film feels too much so because of the momentum not being there.

In conclusion, watchable but underwhelming considering the source material and the cast. 5/10.

Chekhov's plays have generally resisted film and TV adaptations: Sidney Lumet's "Sea Gull" was lumpy and not well cast, and even the Russian film adaptations have been turgid affairs.

Michael Cacoyannis' version of "The Cherry Orchard" (originally titled "Varya" after one of the main characters), is better than Lumet's film largely because it's better acted in general. But the direction is sometimes fussy, sometimes leaden - the pacing becomes more and more turgid as the film progresses. The final 40 minutes or so become very tedious. Plus there's an unnecessary prologue in Paris - an obvious attempt to open up the play, but it goes on much too long.

Charlotte Rampling does very well as Madame Ranyevskaya, a near-penniless aristocrat who returns to her family estate as it is about to be auctioned after a default on the mortgage. Rampling clearly shows us a aging woman who is spoiled, charming, childish, delusional, sometimes haughty and condescending, and feckless - a person who never learned how to manage money because she never felt she had to. Her performance makes this woman less conventionally sympathetic than others in the role - which is fine. There are times when her performance is undercut by some jarring editing where her mood swings from one extreme to another.

The rest of the cast is quite fine: Alan Bates as Ranyevskaya's equally feckless and lazy brother Gayev shows us the man who knows full well his coming fate, yet goes through fits of denial to coddle his sister and the others; Michael Gough as the increasingly senile family servant Fiers; Tushka Bergen as Ranyevskaya's daughter Anya.

The best acting comes from Katrin Cartlidge as the hapless, lovesick, foster daughter Varya, a soul sister to Sonia of Uncle Vanya; and Owen Teale (who was superb with Janet McTeer onstage in "A Doll's House") as Lopahin, a former peasant whose family worked on Ranyevskaya's farm but who has now become a successful businessman. His efforts to convince the fading aristocrats to save themselves by selling the estate fall on deaf ears, so he decides on a different plan of action.

I would recommend seeing this only to people who are familiar with the play. First-timers would be better off seeking out a good stage production (lots of luck there) as Chekhov has always worked better there.

In this era of gratuitous special effects and uneven, even shoddy, production, one cannot depend on Hollywood to successfully transfer a stage play to the screen. This movie is partially the exception, as the movie amazingly pulls itself together in midstream to become a commendable work of art. The first part of this movie is a cinematic disaster. It's boring, slow, and muddled, with a terrible first ten minutes which is supposed to provide some background information about some of the main characters but which is totally disconnected from the main body of the story itself which takes place in a completely different venue. Then as this movie is heading toward a complete cinematic breakdown it amazingly recovers its strength and vitality and becomes crisp, sharp, focused and coherent, conveying a poignant story about torment and suffering in time of change. From that point on all the performances are great, especially that of Michael Gough, Alan Bates and the beautiful Charlotte Rampling who succeeds in capturing the essence of the woman whose whole world is being turned upside down. But despite the strong finish, that one first has to endure a truly bad start before getting to the good part makes this movie a tedious cinematic experience.