002-042012.Pdf
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
One Hundred Years of Habitude: Russian Comedy on the British and American Stage The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Shimanovskaya, Veronica A. 2012. One Hundred Years of Habitude: Russian Comedy on the British and American Stage. Master's thesis, Harvard University, Extension School. Citable link https://nrs.harvard.edu/URN-3:HUL.INSTREPOS:37367521 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA One Hundred Years of Habitude: Russian Comedy on the British and American Stage Veronica A. Shimanovskaya A Thesis in the Field of Dramatic Arts for the Degree of Master of Liberal Arts in Extension Studies Harvard University May 2012 Abstract This study investigates the causes and effects of the ways in which Russian comedy has been understood by British and American scholars and theatre practitioners from the time it was introduced in the beginning of the twentieth century to the present day. For the purpose of this investigation two Russian playwrights were selected: Anton Chekhov and Aleksandr Griboedov. Chekhov’s phenomenal influence on theater and literature is widely known. Griboedov is hardly a household name in Britain and America, although he is considered one of the founding fathers of Russian realistic drama, and his verse comedy Woe from Wit1 is revered as a literary and satirical masterpiece in Russia.2 Numerous productions of Chekhov’s plays have been staged by British and American theater companies. Chekhov was so cordially accepted into the British canon that “during the ‘70s and ‘80s [of the 20th century] the number of productions was second only to Shakespeare’s.”3 One question, however, kept eluding an answer for a long while: why, despite Chekhov’s claim that he was writing comedies, were they produced as tragedies or dramas? Perhaps that predominant view on Chekhov’s 1 The name of Griboedov’s most famous comedy has been translated differently: the clumsy literal translation as Woe from Wit is one of the first and therefore most common. The Misfortune of Being Clever, The Importance of Being Stupid, Woes of Wit, and simply Chatsky are the variants. 2 Sara Stanton and Martin Banham, Cambridge Paperback Guide to Theatre (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 151. 3 Svetlana Klimenko, “Anton Chekhov and British Nostalgia,” Orbis Literarum 56 (2001): 122. dramatic work not only skewed the perspective on Russian comedy in general, but also influenced assumptions about other Russian plays yet unknown to the English-speaking public. I hypothesize that there are three major factors that contributed to the twentieth- century understanding of Russian comedy in England and the USA: a specific development within Russian comedy and Russian criticism on their native soil, namely, the high emphasis on comedy as a means of social satire in the context of a long tradition of censorship in Russia and a high degree of political motivation in Russian criticism; the differences in emotional expression between Russian speakers and Anglophones that often led to misreading and misinterpretation of characters’ motives; and finally, the socio-cultural circumstances that helped to shape the first impression of Russian comedies on English-speaking audiences. In testing my hypothesis, primary sources are analyzed, such as Chekhov’s and Griboedov’s notebooks and letters, and the texts of their respective plays. Critical and scholarly views on the subject are examined for the purpose of finding the reasons behind inconsistent and at times contradictory interpretations of Chekhov’s and Griboedov’s creative heritage. The issue of translation is also taken into consideration. The thesis demonstrates the specific set of circumstances that shaped the last century’s vision of Russian comedy and explains why it is set to change. iv Note on the Spelling of Russian Names I use a contemporary convention of the spelling of Russian names throughout my own writing. However, due to changing conventions and the relative looseness in transcription of Russian names, a variety of forms of the same names exists in other peoples’ work. While quoting these sources I retain the original spelling of the source. v Acknowledgments I feel it my duty to express my deep gratitude to all the people who encouraged and helped me in my work. The firm and gracious leadership of Doctor Sue Schopf; the insightful and inspiring guidance of my thesis director Jeremy Geidt; my friends Richard Benton and Olga Shaumyan, of whose patience I availed myself; and the unconditional support of my son Fyodor Druzin. vi Table of Contents Note on the Spelling of Russian Names .............................................................................v Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. vi List of Figures.................................................................................................................. viii Introduction..........................................................................................................................1 I. A Note on Specifics in Development Of Russian Theatre and Russian Comedy ......7 II. The Role of Russian Criticism in Myth Creation .....................................................14 III. Interpreting Chekhov: Stanislavsky’s Effect ............................................................34 IV. Translation, Transmission, and Transformation: Critics, Directors, and Emotional Universals .................................................................................................................48 V. The Last Three Decades and The Present Day .........................................................70 Epilogue .............................................................................................................................84 Figures................................................................................................................................86 Bibliography ......................................................................................................................98 vii List of Figures Fig. 1 Oil portrait of Griboedov as a youth, by an unknown artist. (Reproduced in Hobson 2005).........................................................................................................86 Fig. 2 Sketch of Griboedov by Pushkin. (Reproduced in Kelly 2006)............................86 Fig. 3 Lithograph of Griboedov by Borelia, 1860 (Reproduced in Leach and Borovsky 1999)......................................................................................................86 Fig. 4 Title page of Anthony Burges’s type script of translation and adaptation of Griboedov’s play. 1993 (Harry Ransom Foundation) ...........................................87 Fig. 5 Stanislavsky as Famusov in Woe from Wit. MAT Production. Moscow 1914 (New York Public Library. Image ID: TH-63583, The Wikimedia Foundation)..88 Fig. 6 Chatsky. Almeida Theatre Production. London 1993. Colin Firth as Chatsky, Jemma Redgrave as Sophia. (Photographs by Ivan Kyncl, from the Almeida Theatre programme)...............................................................................................89 Fig. 7 Chekhov in 1888. Ten years after writing Platonov in 1878 and ten years before MAT production of The Seagull 1898.......................................................90 Fig. 8 Vera Komissarzhevskaya as Nina in Act I of the first production of The Seagull, Aleksandrinsky Theatre, St. Petersburg, 1896 (Reproduced in Senelick 33) ...........................................................................................................91 Fig. 9 Konstantin Stanislavsky’s production of The Seagull. Moscow Art Theatre, Moscow, 1898. (from Goudarstvenny Centralny Teatralny Musei imeni Bakhrushina. <http://www.allchekhov.ru/theater/history/> ..................................92 Fig. 10 Konstantin Stanislavsky’s production of The Seagull. Moscow Art Theatre, Moscow, 1898. Stanislavsky as Trigoirn, Lilina as Masha, Roksanova as Nina (from Goudarstvenny Centralny Teatralny Musei imeni Bakhrushina) < http://www.allchekhov.ru/theater/history/>........................................................92 Fig. 11 Act I of Theodore Komisarjevsky’s production of The Seagull, New Theatre London, 1936. Frederick Lloyd as Sorin, Ivor Bernard as Medvedenko, John Gielgud as Trigorin, Edith Evans as Arkadina, Peggy Ashcroft as Nina, George Devine as Shamraev, Leone Quartermaine as Dorn and Clair Harris as Paulina (reproduced in Senelick 161).................................................................................93 viii Fig. 12 Act III of Three Sisters by Michel Saint Denis, Queen’s Theatre, London 1937. Michael Redgrave as Tusenbach, Frederick Lloyd as Chebutykin, Peggy Ashcroft as Irina, John Gielgud as Vershinin and Leone Quartermaine as Kulygin (Reproduced in Senelick 148)..................................................................94 Fig. 13 Tyron Gutrie’s Cherry Orchard, Old Vic, London 1933. Elsa Lanchester as Charlotta and Charles Laughton as Lopakhin (Reproduced in Senelick 145).......95 Fig. 14 Nemirovich-Danchenko, production of Three Sisters. MAT, Moscow, 1940 ..... 96 Fig. 15 Mummers. Act II, Three Sisters Nemirovich-Danchenko’s