Bewertungstechnisch spielt 'Uncle Vanya' bereits jetzt in der selben Liga wie 'The Crucible' (fehlt nur noch die 3-Sterne-Kritik der Daily Fail
) - und ist dabei ganz anders. Wenn das nicht von schauspielerischer Qualität zeugt, weiß ich nicht.
Ein weiteres Mal leuchten hier fünf Sterne:
Zitat:
reviews, news & interviews
Uncle Vanya, Harold Pinter Theatre review - a superlative company achievement
Ian Rickson’s exemplary production relishes the nuances of Conor McPherson's adaptation
by Tom Birchenough
Friday, 24 January 2020
Uncle Vanya must surely be the closest, the most essential of Chekhov’s plays, its cast – just four main players who are caught up in its fraught emotional action, and four who are essentially support – a concentrated unit even by the playwright's lean standards. Its overlapping strands of unrequited love and desperate loneliness are tightly wound, so organically that any one false note risks throwing the whole off balance. That’s never the case in director Ian Rickson’s exquisite production of this new adaptation by Conor McPherson, one which stretches the original in certain directions but succeeds resoundingly in making the turn-of-the-20th-century cares of the original resonate today.
In one particular sense, of course, that contemporary relevance is startling. The ecological concerns articulated by Astrov, the careworn doctor who's as much concerned for the forests that he plants as for the patients that he tends, have an uncanny freshness today, Chekhov’s pessimism about the possibilities of human relationships for once finding a parallel in a world far beyond them. Played with haunting, lean intensity by Richard Armitage, Astrov may be reticent about his private world but he’s forthright about the future of the planet, talking of its “steady irreversible decline”. The bleakness of his prognosis, “Ten more years and the destruction will be complete”, could have come straight from this week’s newspaper headlines.
For these Russian men, as for McPherson’s Irishmen, drinking is more a direction than a diversion That feeling of interconnection between man and nature is nicely caught in Rae Smith’s capaciously elegant design, its tendrils of outside greenery invading the huge interior space through the high windows that partially illuminate it. Colour and light seem to struggle here against a wider blackness: the further the eye retreats, the stronger the sense of mouldering accretions of the past, until it all vanishes into the bare brickwork of the theatre's back wall (Bruno Poet’s lighting captures exactly the sense of light hanging, almost isolated, in darkness).
The nuances of McPherson’s action seem almost bright by comparison, elements of humour and stage business amplified in his treatment. It’s there most clearly in Toby Jones’s Vanya, a figure rumpled even by the standards of that actor, his disgruntlement palpable from the moment we set eyes on him. Booze has always been a defining accent for McPherson’s characters, and his Vanya is as profligate as any in that line: “I drink too much wine which means then I start into the liqueurs which inevitably lead me on to the spirits,” he resounds gloriously at one point, punctuation be damned, trying to fathom how his best intentions have been stealthily purloined. The strains of affectionate remonstration, most of all those from Anna Calder-Marshall’s beautiful old Nana, the quintessential aged retainer who’s as close a part of the family as can be, surely have a more poignant ring of regretful accusation than usual in Chekhov: it comes with the sad resignation that for these Russian men, as for McPherson’s Irishmen, drinking is more a direction than a diversion.
But McPherson flavours Vanya’s disillusionment with an element that’s less familiar from Chekhov – sarcasm (however fine the line in disenchantment may be between that and any more usual mere mordancy). It’s perhaps the single questionable aspect of the adaptation, most of all in a particular moment when Jones goes into a riff that’s as close to Basil Fawlty as John Cleese has ever come (the stage impact is terrific in its way, of course). Elsewhere he may be rebuked, more gently, for his “casual manner, disparaging”, by Telegin (Peter Wight, expansively affable), but his mother (Dearbhla Molloy) goes the whole way and berates him for sarcasm (the introduction of the word into the play is McPherson’s: Chekhov doesn’t use it).
That, as well the fact that his diction shows an obvious familiarity with Cluedo, leaves an impression that this Vanya has been very much nurtured in Anglo-Saxon climes. His cynicism harks back as far even as Shakespeare’s Jacques – and forward, in his companionship with Armitage’s Astrov especially, to some seen-better-days Graham Greene protagonists, not least because McPherson gives them an easily collegiate jargon adopted from some unspecified inter-war generation, all “going a bit wonky”, “off my beanpole”, “wanging on”. “She’s thrown it all away on this old knobbly croaker,” is how Vanya describes the marriage of Yelena (Rosalind Eleazer) to Ciarán Hinds’s aged Serebryakov, whom he addresses in a moment of rare affability as “me old sausage”.
Then from such a faux-Wodehouse world, we are brought back squarely to Russia, and its fatal national ennui. “What good does drinking do either of you?” Aimee Lou Wood’s Sonya asks Vanya, his reply coming back with pitiless laconic exactitude, “It kills the days.” There’s some lovely tipsy business between the two men (“Awight”), but Armitage is never far from the “darker energy” that Chekhov ascribes to him: the one ailment that this doctor, with all his talk of centuries healing the pain, has perhaps failed to diagnose – in himself – could be PTSD. While Vanya can talk of pity – and self-pity is the dominant motif of the play – compassion is another register entirely, one to which Armitage has heartbreakingly limited access, Sonya heartbreakingly more.
Do the female roles feel somehow overshadowed? It’s hard to escape that impression, given the tone of Vanya’s dominant humour, though the performances are superb. Wood’s Sonya is enduringly naif, virtually undeterred by life’s disappointments, that quality accentuated by the accent, starting with her affectionately Northern uz, that she retains throughout. Rosalind Eleazer as Yelena is outstanding, her hinted awareness of freedom coming through early on when she stretches across the table, leading up to that final stolen embrace, a moment clutched desperately out of time; it’s somehow tempered by the faintest hint of snobbery (a McPherson contribution), a register that she shares with Hinds, whose Serebryakov is distinguished by his clipped, vainglorious rasp. Though even Yelena succumbs to a softening of diction in the second half, a hint of an Irish lisp – Nana and Astrov have it too – that suggests that McPherson, or at least his cast, has in mind his own homeland as much as Chekhov’s Russia (environments that are equally far from any notional centre of Europe).
It’s a superlative collective performance from the cast – many of us will be lucky if we see a better one in our lifetimes – one that, though it’s rich in talent well known from elsewhere (screen, especially), play here in newly minted unison. Somehow “ensemble” seems less appropriate a term for Uncle Vanya than for some of the other Chekhov plays, given that it’s the recurring scenes between two actors that resound most powerfully. But Rickson achieves an ensemble effect in a different sense by creating the kind of hush in the theatre that keeps the audience expectant on every utterance, every gesture. It’s moderated only by Stephen Warbeck’s score, all redolent cello and piano, particularly haunting when it plays over the interludes between acts, and the characters move together silently, creating the effect of a higher harmony even as all we see on stage is strife. Sad roses, autumn roses, indeed.
https://theartsdesk.com/theatre/uncle-vanya-harold-pinter-theatre-review-superlative-company-achievement