Chekov's Gull
Today's review: The Sea Gull.
I was a little concerned when I sat down to watch The Sea Gull. While I wanted to watch the movie because of James Mason’s involvement, a family member of mine made a face and an “ick” noise when they saw it on my “to watch” list. They clarified it was because of Anton Chekov’s work in general and not this adaptation in particular, but it made me brace myself for a mediocre at best viewing experience. As it turns out, I wouldn’t call it an awful movie, but it’s not exactly good, either.
The story revolves around one particular family and their hangers on. There’s a retired judge, Pjotr (Harry Andrews) who now lives in the countryside and occasionally gets visits from his sister, the renowned actress Irina Arkadina (Simone Signoret) and her son Konstantin (David Warner). As the movie starts, Irina has a new lover, the popular writer Trigorin (Mason), and Konstantin is in love with a girl named Nina (Vanessa Redgrave), who’s Pjotr's neighbor. Unfortunately, she’s captivated by Trigorin, Irina is dismissive of Konstantin’s attempt to write a play, and the whole thing becomes a series of love triangles, unrequited love, and musings on life. While I have limited experience with Russian literature, somehow I just know this is par for the course for the genre.
There’s no question that this movie is pretty slow paced. It takes five minutes before anybody speaks and almost half-an-hour before Mason (who gets top billing) gets a line. It also very much betrays its origins as a play, since there are clearly delineated acts and most of the material is two people having a conversation, with very occasional group scenes. There’s also, as I said, a lot of ruminating on life, writing, and things like that, often in very flowery language. Cut through the vocabulary, and you’re left with a familiar, soap opera like story about affairs and dysfunctional families. Not to mention characters who are mostly extraneous and apparently primarily exist for exposition or to make things even more melodramatic. All this and the movie is two and half hours. It’s not a surprise that there are stretches where this movie drags.
For all that, though, the acting and some of the writing keep it from being a complete slog. Mason gives a fine performance as always, I mostly felt sympathetic towards Konstantin (though it’s weird seeing David Warner not playing a bad guy), and Andrews had a “grumpy old man” shtick for Pjotr that made him entertaining to watch. As for the writing, there were some discussions that rang true, like Trigorin’s monologue about how writers enjoy what they’re writing in the moment but hate it once it’s finished, or the frustration Konstantin has about not being able to measure up to the famous circles his mother moves in. There’s also an extended rant about the current trends in plays that makes me wonder if Chekov was either self-aware or poking fun at his fellow playwrights; either way, it’s a meta moment that amused me somewhat, especially since the play that follows this rant is not something I would voluntarily pay to see, whereas I’d probably see the so called “bad” plays. In short, there was enough good there to hold my interest, but I’m not sure if that would be enough to sustain me on a repeat viewing.
It’s probably not worth watching this one. Unless you really like James Mason or Russian literature, it’s just a movie that passes the time decently instead of eliciting strong feelings one way or the other. It’s not horrible by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s a style that I don’t think will appeal to most people. Though it might hold some merit for writers and philosophers…
I was a little concerned when I sat down to watch The Sea Gull. While I wanted to watch the movie because of James Mason’s involvement, a family member of mine made a face and an “ick” noise when they saw it on my “to watch” list. They clarified it was because of Anton Chekov’s work in general and not this adaptation in particular, but it made me brace myself for a mediocre at best viewing experience. As it turns out, I wouldn’t call it an awful movie, but it’s not exactly good, either.
The story revolves around one particular family and their hangers on. There’s a retired judge, Pjotr (Harry Andrews) who now lives in the countryside and occasionally gets visits from his sister, the renowned actress Irina Arkadina (Simone Signoret) and her son Konstantin (David Warner). As the movie starts, Irina has a new lover, the popular writer Trigorin (Mason), and Konstantin is in love with a girl named Nina (Vanessa Redgrave), who’s Pjotr's neighbor. Unfortunately, she’s captivated by Trigorin, Irina is dismissive of Konstantin’s attempt to write a play, and the whole thing becomes a series of love triangles, unrequited love, and musings on life. While I have limited experience with Russian literature, somehow I just know this is par for the course for the genre.
There’s no question that this movie is pretty slow paced. It takes five minutes before anybody speaks and almost half-an-hour before Mason (who gets top billing) gets a line. It also very much betrays its origins as a play, since there are clearly delineated acts and most of the material is two people having a conversation, with very occasional group scenes. There’s also, as I said, a lot of ruminating on life, writing, and things like that, often in very flowery language. Cut through the vocabulary, and you’re left with a familiar, soap opera like story about affairs and dysfunctional families. Not to mention characters who are mostly extraneous and apparently primarily exist for exposition or to make things even more melodramatic. All this and the movie is two and half hours. It’s not a surprise that there are stretches where this movie drags.
For all that, though, the acting and some of the writing keep it from being a complete slog. Mason gives a fine performance as always, I mostly felt sympathetic towards Konstantin (though it’s weird seeing David Warner not playing a bad guy), and Andrews had a “grumpy old man” shtick for Pjotr that made him entertaining to watch. As for the writing, there were some discussions that rang true, like Trigorin’s monologue about how writers enjoy what they’re writing in the moment but hate it once it’s finished, or the frustration Konstantin has about not being able to measure up to the famous circles his mother moves in. There’s also an extended rant about the current trends in plays that makes me wonder if Chekov was either self-aware or poking fun at his fellow playwrights; either way, it’s a meta moment that amused me somewhat, especially since the play that follows this rant is not something I would voluntarily pay to see, whereas I’d probably see the so called “bad” plays. In short, there was enough good there to hold my interest, but I’m not sure if that would be enough to sustain me on a repeat viewing.
It’s probably not worth watching this one. Unless you really like James Mason or Russian literature, it’s just a movie that passes the time decently instead of eliciting strong feelings one way or the other. It’s not horrible by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s a style that I don’t think will appeal to most people. Though it might hold some merit for writers and philosophers…