ddeblieck_13's review against another edition
dark
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.75
Don't read a lot of plays, but this one was very good. Apparently it was a total failure opening night but turned into a classic as it is one of the earliest, best examples of using the setting/dialogue to set a mood rather than being completely plot focused.
samwisest's review against another edition
dark
emotional
funny
mysterious
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
ryryreadsbooks96's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
inspiring
reflective
relaxing
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
Everytime I finish this play, there's an immediate need for me to understand it further and further. But, I don't believe Chekhov's purpose, with any of his 4 major plays, is to get the audience to "understand". There is so much inexpressible beauty in this piece, so much subtle nuance. Chekhov understood relationship more than his contemporaries— in a way that it so mundane and modern, it's hard to believe it came from the early 20th century. Nothing is easy here, and to accomplish the specificity of the text, you need actors who aren't afraid of boredom. The play is action driven, but it's masked by ennui, philosophy, and Russian anecdotes that could easily distance a modern audience. Long monologues, silence, awkwardness. And where does the comedy come from? Treplyóv's dark ideations? Nina's madness? Trigórin's manipulations? Comedy is bad things happening to other people. And, by placing his plays in country comfort, where character's are supposed to be happy— Chekhov offers realistic satires' that don't force empathy. They shed a light on universal discomforts.
The genius of Chekhov is in his ability to still provide a meaningful, though complex, structure. Where's the inciting incident, the conflict, the climax? He has all of these things, but it's not obvious. And, it's not obvious because the character's are so illusive. None of them have a singular objective while they're on stage— which is a challenge for an actor, but a necessary step in where theatre had to go at the beginning of the previous century. I believe Chekhov's plays are the first to genuinely ask actors to have chemistry. You can't have a good Treplyóv without a good Nina, without a good Irína, Sórin, Másha, Trigórin... I could go on. These character's don't work individually. If a Chekhov play is poorly directed, it's poorly acted too. I can watch a bad Hamlet with a good Hamlet. Chekhov plays are typically 10 character ensemble pieces. Something non-musicals have lost due to budget restraints and changing forms. Which is a great thing. But, I'm a biased artist. I like ensemble. We have Baker's The Antipodes, DeLappe's The Wolves, Jenkins' Everybody. There are more. Chekhov not only comments for and against new forms of expression— he heralded a new form himself. One that playwrights still use.
The genius of Chekhov is in his ability to still provide a meaningful, though complex, structure. Where's the inciting incident, the conflict, the climax? He has all of these things, but it's not obvious. And, it's not obvious because the character's are so illusive. None of them have a singular objective while they're on stage— which is a challenge for an actor, but a necessary step in where theatre had to go at the beginning of the previous century. I believe Chekhov's plays are the first to genuinely ask actors to have chemistry. You can't have a good Treplyóv without a good Nina, without a good Irína, Sórin, Másha, Trigórin... I could go on. These character's don't work individually. If a Chekhov play is poorly directed, it's poorly acted too. I can watch a bad Hamlet with a good Hamlet. Chekhov plays are typically 10 character ensemble pieces. Something non-musicals have lost due to budget restraints and changing forms. Which is a great thing. But, I'm a biased artist. I like ensemble. We have Baker's The Antipodes, DeLappe's The Wolves, Jenkins' Everybody. There are more. Chekhov not only comments for and against new forms of expression— he heralded a new form himself. One that playwrights still use.
naiapard's review against another edition
4.0
I thought that the Seagull would be about someone's death.
In retrospective, I think, I could have gotten a lot deeper with the symbolism by saying:
it represents the "social" death of many star eyed people who dehumanize themselves on the altar of true "art".
It is an incredible well written play (all considering--it was written at the dusk of 19th C).
I liked that the female characters had some spine, and they did not willow so easily.
I liked the mother that refused to bow before his son`s pretense greatness.
She did not yield to his tantrums (i.e. he abruptly put a stop to an entire play because he had a fit). I even liked the young actress that had run from home. It reminded me of Sibyl from [b:The Picture of Dorian Grey|49700834|The Picture of Dorian Grey|Oscar Wilde|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1563485810l/49700834._SX50_SY75_.jpg|72186577].
Instagram\\my Blog\\
In retrospective, I think, I could have gotten a lot deeper with the symbolism by saying:
it represents the "social" death of many star eyed people who dehumanize themselves on the altar of true "art".
It is an incredible well written play (all considering--it was written at the dusk of 19th C).
I liked that the female characters had some spine, and they did not willow so easily.
I liked the mother that refused to bow before his son`s pretense greatness.
She did not yield to his tantrums (i.e. he abruptly put a stop to an entire play because he had a fit). I even liked the young actress that had run from home. It reminded me of Sibyl from [b:The Picture of Dorian Grey|49700834|The Picture of Dorian Grey|Oscar Wilde|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1563485810l/49700834._SX50_SY75_.jpg|72186577].
Instagram\\my Blog\\
vianadear's review against another edition
4.0
la nostalgia que me trae esta obra plss la debo haber leído 20 veces allá en el 2015/2016
hollasan's review against another edition
2.0
What's the big deal about this play? I thought it was alright.
My favourite part was the first play Konstantin wrote - set in a future where there are no living people. Nina's dialogues there felt ethereal and I especially liked Konstantin's "4D" theatre experience with the Devil's red eyes and the smell of sulphur. The other thing that stuck with me was the final big event that occurs off-screen and the way the doctor addresses it with the group.
I also liked the themes of people obsessing over famous people while famous people are filled with self-doubt. Also Konstantin's desperation for his mother's approval. Nina's descent into some sort of madness towards the end where she quite literally confuses herself with the seagull. The very obvious seagull metahpor/prophecy.
The rest of it was quite boring. There are so many unnecessary love triangles that feel forced.
I didn't think the play was funny at all when I read it. However, I watched it live and it was funnier then.
Overall, it's just okay. Unfortunate that this is my first Chekhov.
My favourite part was the first play Konstantin wrote - set in a future where there are no living people. Nina's dialogues there felt ethereal and I especially liked Konstantin's "4D" theatre experience with the Devil's red eyes and the smell of sulphur. The other thing that stuck with me was the final big event that occurs off-screen and the way the doctor addresses it with the group.
I also liked the themes of people obsessing over famous people while famous people are filled with self-doubt. Also Konstantin's desperation for his mother's approval. Nina's descent into some sort of madness towards the end where she quite literally confuses herself with the seagull. The very obvious seagull metahpor/prophecy.
The rest of it was quite boring. There are so many unnecessary love triangles that feel forced.
I didn't think the play was funny at all when I read it. However, I watched it live and it was funnier then.
Overall, it's just okay. Unfortunate that this is my first Chekhov.
gradamsward16's review against another edition
challenging
reflective
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
4.0
or_polachek's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.75
abigaillo's review against another edition
4.0
first thing i thought when i finished it was "intensely sad", and i'll leave it at that