The Cherry Orchard (1999) Reviews

• Re: I bloody loved it!

  shicovianista2005-07-07

  From the previous reviews I gather that this is where the elite meet to bleat. I wish those who are so afflicted by nearly everything in this lovely film could spell a bit better. I have seen several stage versions of this play, and I have read the play, so I was prepared to see the film. I agree with whoever it was who said it would appeal best to those who had seen or read the play and that is true. Not every film is for the popcorn crowd. I loved the atmosphere and that is something you cannot get in a stage play. How can acres of cherry trees in blossom be offensive to anyone? That falling-down hunting lodge seemed just right for that decaying family. The costumes were beautiful. There is not a single character in the story whom anyone could actually like, it's true, but by the end of the story you have been told so many things about them, if you pay attention, you can believe in them, which is better at times than merely being able to 'like' them. I believe Chekhov would have approved it.

• Try to see it where you can SEE it.

  jwarthen-32002-08-17

  Cacoyannis began his career filming Greek tragedies five decades ago. Anyone seeing his production of Chekhov's wonderful play knows he adores this work: the discerning casting, the use of Tchaikovsky's little-known piano pieces. Best of all is the look of the production-- its costuming and lighting have the quality of delicate homage. Watch for scenes like the arrival of auction-bidders in a muddy street midway through the film-- a bit of period recreation on a par with Coppola and Scorsese. Chekhov's brilliant bits of stage-business are treasured here: Varya's clobbering her wished-for fiance with a door-slam, Epikhodov's goofs, Yasha's mother-problem, and especially the family's sitting gravely down together before their dispersal. These are lovingly done, and if citing them here is meaningless to those who haven't read the play, I'm afraid the film will mean as little to them, especially on videotape, where the exquisite visuals won't count for much. The acting can't sustain novices-- the cast, especially the males, show the effects of limited rehearsal time, sliding in and out of cohesion. The exceptions to that are Katrin Cartlidge (in a role that often stands-out in stage productions), Ian McNeice, and Michael Gough, delivering the finest performance I have seen from his 50+ years of movie-acting-- acting-teachers should march students to see CHERRY ORCHARD to hear how Gough reads a choice line like, "Now I can die." Cacoyannis nodded in spots: the weird accents affected by the lower-class characters add nothing, and the hammy Act II beggar-- one wants to thrash him. This is not a great film. But the play it serves may be the past century's greatest. At a time when American theaters cannot afford large-cast period plays, a Chekhov-fan feels special gratitude for this production.

• Chekhov on film with mixed results

  baker-92003-06-10

  Chekhov's plays have generally resisted film and TV adaptations: Sidney Lumet's "Sea Gull" was lumpy and not well cast, and even the Russian film adaptations have been turgid affairs. Michael Cacoyannis' version of "The Cherry Orchard" (originally titled "Varya" after one of the main characters), is better than Lumet's film largely because it's better acted in general. But the direction is sometimes fussy, sometimes leaden - the pacing becomes more and more turgid as the film progresses. The final 40 minutes or so become very tedious. Plus there's an unnecessary prologue in Paris - an obvious attempt to open up the play, but it goes on much too long. Charlotte Rampling does very well as Madame Ranyevskaya, a near-penniless aristocrat who returns to her family estate as it is about to be auctioned after a default on the mortgage. Rampling clearly shows us a aging woman who is spoiled, charming, childish, delusional, sometimes haughty and condescending, and feckless - a person who never learned how to manage money because she never felt she had to. Her performance makes this woman less conventionally sympathetic than others in the role - which is fine. There are times when her performance is undercut by some jarring editing where her mood swings from one extreme to another. The rest of the cast is quite fine: Alan Bates as Ranyevskaya's equally feckless and lazy brother Gayev shows us the man who knows full well his coming fate, yet goes through fits of denial to coddle his sister and the others; Michael Gough as the increasingly senile family servant Fiers; Tushka Bergen as Ranyevskaya's daughter Anya. The best acting comes from Katrin Cartlidge as the hapless, lovesick, foster daughter Varya, a soul sister to Sonia of Uncle Vanya; and Owen Teale (who was superb with Janet McTeer onstage in "A Doll's House") as Lopahin, a former peasant whose family worked on Ranyevskaya's farm but who has now become a successful businessman. His efforts to convince the fading aristocrats to save themselves by selling the estate fall on deaf ears, so he decides on a different plan of action. I would recommend seeing this only to people who are familiar with the play. First-timers would be better off seeking out a good stage production (lots of luck there) as Chekhov has always worked better there.

• Ensemble acting at it's best---

  Ishallwearpurple2005-08-10

  The Cherry Orchard is an ensemble piece about a country estate with a famous cherry orchard that is the pride of the province. It is 1900 in Russia and amid the turmoil of social and political revolution, the family and servants at this little corner of the world are caught in a time warp. It is still Imperial Russia with all the privileges for the wealthy and landed gentry. Time goes by, life goes by, wealth disappears, but these people can't be bothered to notice. Charlotte Rampling ("The Statement" 2003) is Madame Ranevskaya who returns, with her daughter, from exile in Paris to her estate to be with her lazy brother (Alan Bates, "Gosford Park"), her adopted daughter, and various servants, friends and freed peasants. Like the large old house, their way of life is rotting away. They are broke and the only thing that will save them from poverty is to sell the land, house and orchard to developers. But the are so besotted with the old life they cannot arouse themselves to make a decision on what to do. And of course, they lose it all. The commentary throughout in the form of asides, laughter and outright contempt, is in the character of the servant Yasha (Gerard Butler, "Dear Frankie"). He serves Madam R, but he gossips about her profligate ways, has contempt for many in the family and takes advantage of the privileges they provide him, including a romp in the orchard with one of the housemaids (Melanie Lynskey,"Shooters"), who he then lectures on her immoral ways. It is a small part, but acts like a Greek chorus to comment on the others. In the end, the doddering valet of Bates is left alone, locked into this decaying house, two old relics forgotten by the aristocrats and the new bourgeoisie. He says to himself "my life has gone by as though I have never lived. No strings - nothing." He leans back in the chair and dies. These people are so careless that no one makes sure the old man has really been taken to a hospital, although they all talk about it, and Yasha keeps assuring everyone he 'knows' he was picked up. So they all just ride off in their carriages and the woodsmen move into the orchard and begin chopping down the cherry trees. The beauty of the cinematography, costumes and piano score of Tchaikovsky music set a mood that is languid and only for those who relish the type of multi-character stories like the recent "Gosford Park." I loved it. 9/10

• The challenge of The Cherry Orchard

  Michael Fargo2011-01-27

  I don't know that it's possible to achieve a satisfactory production of this Chekov work. Written at the end of his life, the tone is always a question. When Chekov first saw what Stanislavski had done with the play, he was horrified. "This is a comedy!" Well, that's hard to pull off. While all the characters are certainly silly and vain and foolish, their circumstance--with the weight of the Revolution soon to rip the entire World open--is not anything to laugh at. And their future is undeniably grim, even though we have the perspective of history to assess their fate, in the context of the play, what's ahead is not going to be something where the audience can rejoice. At the premiere, audiences cheered at the sound of the ax cutting the orchard. Whether that was Chekov's intention (doubtful), it's impossible to create that kind of reaction today. Cacoyannis, however, comes close to perfection. While some of the lines are stage-bound, his choice to open the play up to nature as much as possible was the right one. We see the investment in the family has in the orchard first hand and what it means to lose it. The music by Tchaikovsky adds an aura of authenticity to these fragile people and their bittersweet story; set decoration and costuming are both splendid. Ms. Rampling, who is always interesting, works against the classic portrayal of Mme. Ranevsky. She's not simply a ninny who has suffered circumstances that she's unprepared to deal with; Rampling shows us she's suffered real tragedy and to survive has lapsed into a world bordering on delusion. It's a tender and loving performance. The rest of the cast is more traditional but also excellent. The camera shows us it's magic in the final tableaux. As it floats around the abandoned and locked country home, Chekov's most surprising device works better on screen than on the stage. This is a very impressive work by one of the masters of the cinema who has brought one of the masterpieces of theater (again) to audiences of the cinema. Note: I've since read where other viewers objected to the brief prologue Cacoyannis has added to the play, and I'm going to disagree that it was a mistake. In a stage production, the audience is somewhat disoriented as to why Ranevsky is arriving at the estate, and Cacoyannis clarifies that with the prologue. As well, we are allowed some of the poignancy of the return and to see where and with whom she's been spending her time. For me it added rather than distracted to the text.