The Sea Gull

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.

Despite it being at least thirty minutes too long and director Sidney Lumet's doing a less than stellar job of making a movie as opposed to filming a stage play (ie, even the outdoor scenes feel like they're indoors) , with annoyingly artsy fartsy, soft focus cinematography from DP Gerry Fisher, I enjoyed this film. Well, maybe "enjoyed" is not the right word when you consider that this is your typical Chekhovian misery party with your hosts Boredom, Unhappiness and Melancholy. But then again, considering the part that schadenfreude plays in these kinds of works, as in "Trigorin's and Treplev's troubles are worse than my own", maybe enjoyment is an apt description, after all, especially when served with a generous helping of black comedy and just enough hope at the end to keep it from getting stuck in your throat. And the acting is nothing less than amazingly good, especially Mason in late career, Warner and Redgrave (the "Morgan" team, reunited) in early career and Signoret in the middle. Give it a B minus.

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.

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.

The cast names sounds just impressive but the basic virtue of film is the art of Sydney Lumet to explore and translate in image one of the most delicate - bitter plays by Anton Tchekov. And the solution is to propose a great Arkadina , beautiful acted by Simone Signoret, an admirable Nina , passing in fair and almost elegant manner from one of age to the other, the ideal Sorin and good answer to the expectations about Konstantin, offered, in honest - precise way by David Warner.

Chayka is not a comfortable play because all risks to become fake. But, in this case, you feel the words, the spirit and the air of this drama and it becomes easy to confess than it is just a Chekhov in spirit, like in form.

In short, an inspired adaptation and new meeting with the round fragility of a world near its fall.