The Seagull (2018) Reviews

• "We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!"

  richard-17872018-06-15

  I thought of that line from Sunset Boulevard several times this afternoon as I sat, the only person in the theater for a 2:50 matinee, watching this *Seagull*. Not that the script, based on Chekhov's play of the same name, was negligible. To the contrary. It was well delivered by a cast who, for the most part, knew how to do so with telling effect. But what struck me, over and over, were all the close-ups of the faces. Wonderful faces, characterful faces, belonging to actors young and older who never knew the silent screen era and yet know how to act just with their faces. Faces often perfectly lit, so that we saw the fresh beauty of the young - Saoirse Ronan, as Nina, out on the lake with Boris Trigorin and elsewhere in the early parts of the movie - and the cruel wrinkles and crowsfeet of those to whom time has not always been kind (Annette Bening, as the aging actress Irina, who delivered her dialogue wonderfully, but did so much more with her face alone when she considered, at the odd moment, that she might in fact no longer look appealing to her younger lover, Trigorin). If you like to watch actors act with their faces, as Norma Desmond and her generation knew how to do, you will find this movie a feast for the eyes. But it is also beautifully filmed. The exteriors were evidently shot up in northern New York State, and they are like landscape paintings. The interiors, with period costumes, are wonderfully shot as well. But it is the performances that you will remember. In addition to those already mentioned, Brian Dennehy, now 80 years old, is winning as the aging Sorin. Billy Howle does a fine job with the young playwright Konstantin, so convinced that he sees a new way to do theater and yet so very wrong. I was less captivated by the Doctor and Boris Trigorin. Elisabeth Moss had a difficult assignment, because Masha is such an unsympathetic character, particularly self-centered in a story about self-centered people. Another thing that struck me repeatedly as I watched this movie was how cruel most of the characters are to each other, in their own very decorous ways, mostly because they are so wrapped up in themselves that they do not consider those around them. Well before Antonin Artaud and Jean Genet, *The Seagull* is definitely an example of the theater of cruelty. Because this was released in the summer, it will, I suppose, be forgotten by Oscar time. More's the pity. There is a lot of very good work here, in the acting, the lighting, the cinematography and the direction. This is definitely a movie that could be savored more than once. ---------------------------------------- I subsequently reread the play, in Laurence Senelick's 2006 translation. I was surprised to see how much of the script is taken verbatim from that. The person who did the fine screen adaptation removed references to things that contemporary audiences would not know, shifted locales for certain episodes to produce the sort of visual variety you can't have in a play but need in a modern movie, and trimmed back certain passages so that subsequent events, such as Nina's appearance at the estate near the end of the movie, come as more of a surprise. Other than that, this movie is a remarkably faithful transfer to the screen of Chehkov's play.

  More

• Far from Chekhov

  bernardoarquivo2018-09-29

  When you make a 98 minute movie of a play that usually clocks in at about two hours or so, a great deal of text is bound to be wasted. It's the case with this latest version of "The Seagull", and Chekhov is not an author whose lines you can simply discard. Dorn, the doctor, has been known and remembered since the premiere of the play in 1896 for prescribing his idiotic "valerian drops" (which according to Stanislavski's memoirs was something that Chekhov himself used to do, somewhat mockingkly, since he was a doctor himself). It's not in this movie. Trigorin's magnificent monologue to Nina about never being able to compete with Tolstoi or Turgueniev - one of Cheklovs finests - was butchered and becomes meaningless. Konstantin has a long and heartfelt conversation with Sorin at the beginning to explain his problematic relationship with his mother. It's brutally cut. Polina, Masha and Medvedenko are reduced to a useless bunch of shallow losers. Director Michael Mayer was apparently more concerned with beautiful landscapes, lakes, boats and gardens. And a soundtrack (very sweet and nice, I might add) that reminds us constantly of a romantic comedy of the eighties. As it's been pointed out, here, the movie is "beautifully made". But it has nothing to do with Chekhov. The cast is very uneven and the roles are poorly developed. Director's fault. Saoirse Ronan is ok, and her smile lights up the screen. But no real depth. Corey Stoll is excellent but his role was pulverized so he doesn't have much to do with his Trigorin. Same with the brilliant Brian Dennehy's Sorin. Annette Bening is good but lacks the necessary charisma for Arkadina. The sweet, sad and loving Masha turns to a neurotic drunk by Elisabeth Moss. Mare Winningham's Polina is just a whiny and annoying matron. And Billy Howle is very weak as Kostia. For people who wish to come in contact with this wonderful play, I recommend the flawless 1975 version with Blythe Danner, Frank Langella, Lee Grant and Kevin McCarthy. Or Lumet's 1968 movie. And for real aficcionados, the 1974 russian version, with great Irina Miroshnichenko as Masha.

  More

• Stellar ensemble cast wasted; movie lacks spark

  paul-allaer2018-06-16

  "The Seagull" (2018 release; 98 min.) is the latest big screen adaptation of the Anton Chekhov theater play. As the movie opens, we are at "The Imperial Theater, Moscow, 1904", where an aging stage actress is saying her goodbyes left and right. The action then shifts to the dacha (country estate), where the actress' ailing brother is anxiously awaiting her arrival. Meanwhile the actress' son Konstantin is preparing to stage his latest play. He is assisted by a lovely young lady, and the two seem happily in love... At this point we're less than 10 min. into the movie but to tell you more of the plot would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out. Couple of comments: this is the latest film from director Michael Mayer, who is best known for his work on Broadway. Here he tackles what should be a natural for him: bringing a stage play onto the big screen. "The Seagull" has been made into a movie before (and a number of times at that), but I must admit that this is the first movie adaptation I have seen. All the elements are seemingly in place, none more so that a terrific ensemble cast led by Annette Bening, who seemingly only gets better as she ages, but also Saoirse Ronan, Elisabeth Moss, Brian Dennehy, and Billy Howle, just to name those. And it's certainly not the acting talent that is lacking. Bening and Ronan are simply terrific. (As an aside, Ronan and Howle are co-starring as a couple in not one but two movies currently playing at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati: besides the Seagull, they also star in "On Chesil Beach". What are the odds of that?) Yet despite all this, "The Seagull" is simply not a great, or even good, movie. We watch these character but have no emotional investment in them. When Konstantin has yet another outburst (almost like a five year old's tantrum), we just wonder--why? When romantic relationships may or may not develop, we wonder where the spark is for that. It' a darn shame, and frankly I was relieved when the movie's end titles started rolling, as I had had more than my fill of this. "The Seagull" was filmed exactly 3 years ago (and one can notice it when you compare Ronan in this and in "On Chesil Bech", filmed 1 1/2 yrs. after this). Why has this been sitting on the shelf for so long? One can only wonder... The movie opened this weekend at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati, and based purely on the strong ensemble cast, I decided to check it out. The Friday early evening screening where I saw this at was attended okay but not great (about 10 people). Frankly I haven't heard single buzz about this movie, and I can't see this playing long in the theater. If you have an interest in big screen play adaptations, or are a fan of anyong in the ensemble cast, I'd suggest you check this out, be it in the theater (while you still can), on VOD, or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray, and draw your own conclusion.

  More

• I think three stars is generous

  georgiasunflower2019-01-15

  I wanted to watch this movie and I sat their with excitement wanting it to be worth it. The cast was amazing, all incredibly talented which is why it was sad to watch all of that talent waste into nothing. I must admit I have not read the original work so I will not critique the story, but this adaptation of it was boring, listless and never went anywhere. I felt like I got on a train, road through beautiful country, but ended up exiting at the exact spot from where I had entered. Not much happened though I was constantly on the edge of my seat anticipating something. This was very much a wasted hour and a half.

  More

• A pleasure

  craig-359-5435022018-06-30

  First, let me say that this film is not for everyone. If you don't have an appreciation for the tragedy often present in real human relationships and often chronicled by Russian authors you may not enjoy this movie to the fullest. On the other hand, if you have some familiarity with Russian literature you may be pleasantly surprised. The cast performed wonderfully.

  More