理解“Chekhovian”

摘 要：“海鷗”是一部過渡性劇作。在此劇作中，契訶夫試圖摒棄“情節(jié)劇”或“佳構(gòu)劇”中老套的戲劇手法，創(chuàng)造一種新的“現(xiàn)實主義”劇場。然而，不僅他這種新的戲劇手法，包括這部劇作的主題都讓觀眾、演員，甚至導(dǎo)演感到困惑。本文將分析劇作中新的戲劇手法的運用以及它是如何幫助傳達(dá)作者的意圖。

關(guān)鍵詞：間接行動；象征；主題

作者簡介：沈草，女（1983.12—），廣東外語外貿(mào)大學(xué)國際學(xué)院助教，文學(xué)碩士，研究方向為東西方戲劇。

[中圖分類號]：I106.35 [文獻(xiàn)標(biāo)識碼]：A

[文章編號]：1002—2139（2012）—18—00—02

The premiere of The Seagull at the Alexandrinsky Theatre in St Petersburg on 17 October 1896 was a disastrous failure. The audience had no clue what the playwright was trying to convey. They were very disappointed and confused when everything tends to be dramatic like suicide took place offstage， and roared with laughter in the last act when Nina， the protagonist began her monologue of a symbolic play， which should have been “the most dramatic and moving place in the play”[1]129. Two years later， the play was staged again under Stanislavski’s direction and it was a huge success. However， Chekhov was “appalled”[2] by the way Nina was depicted as a failure in this production and even claimed that “the Fourth Act was not from his play”[1]136.

Interesting enough， both the failure and the success of those productions resulted from a misunderstanding of the playwright’s artistic intention and the theme of the play. In the play people can find many tragic elements such as unrequited lovers， undervalued artist， betrayal， a lot of suffering and even death. However Chekhov himself described it a comedy. A critic once pointed out， “The very essence of a Chekhov play lies in its balance”[3]. To understand this “balance” between tragic and hopeful aspects， which is now recognized as Chekhovian， it’s key to understand the new dramaturgy that Chekhov was exploring in this play， the symbols that embody rich subtexts and how they work together to convey the author’s message.

Indirect Action

At the time when Chekhov was writing The Seagull， melodrama and well—made plays were the most popular forms of theatre， which contain lots of exciting on—stage events， but this play never meant to be one of those. It is a play， as Chekhov says in his letters， that is “contrary to all the rules of dramatic art”[4]80， being full of conversations and little actions. Everything that are potentially dramatic such as Nina being abandoned， the death of her child， Masha's choice to marry a man she doesn't love， Treplev's two suicide attempts， are not shown on stage but recounted by one of the characters. What Chekhov was attempting to achieve here is a work of indirect action， showing life as it is. \"After all， in real life\"， as Chekhov explains， \"people don't spend every minute shooting each other， hanging themselves and making confessions of love...They're more occupied with eating， drinking， flirting and talking stupidities which ought to be shown on the stage...People eat their dinner， just eat their dinner， and at the time their happiness is being established or their lives are being broken up.\"[5]234 Not only being truer to life， this “submergence of hyper—dramatic moments”[4]80also enables the spectators to keep distance from sympathy， tears， horror and other tragic elements， allowing them more space to reflect.

Symbols

Though having adopted conventions of realism and aiming to show life as it is， the playwright never meant to be \"realistic\" in a simple way. The seemingly casual conversations， which are described as “prosaic”[1]141by critics， are full of signals of rich subtexts. And one of the most significant signals in the play is “the seagull”， a symbol closely related to protagonists’ fates and identity， and a key in understanding the \"complex and subtle emotions\"[5]236 that embodied in the play.

Different from the conventional symbols which are usually \"significant by itself， and yet lead naturally to something more important\"[4]70， the seagull， as a central symbol in this play， is not symbolic \"in any pseudo—poetic\" or culturally anxious way\"[6]70. In the original Russian version of this play， the title \"chaika\" simply means the gull genus and the species of seagull， that is to say， \"the seagull\" carries no particular meaning at the first place， thus it is free to carry varied and more profound meanings.

The two protagonists whose fates are most closely related to this symbol are Nina and Treplev， but what it means to them is quite different and the meaning changes over the course of the play. The first time Nina claims herself to be a seagull is in Act One， when she is about to start her performance， \"I feel drawn to the lake here like a seagull...My heart is full of you （the whole landscape）\"[7]10. The \"seagull\" here actually doesn't carry any specific meaning， while the \"lake\" is much more symbolic. This is the place where Nina can do what she loves most—acting， though she is usually forbidden to go there as her parents think it is too \"Bohemian\"[7]（10）. Thus for her， the lake means freedom and when she claims that she feels drawn to the lake， she is implying that she is fascinated by the feeling of being an actress.

It is Treplev who first makes the seagull a real symbol. He kills a seagull， lays it at Nina's feet and says to her， \"soon I shall kill myself in the same way\"[7]（33）. By killing the seagull and claiming that he will kill himself in the same way， Treplev is making the bird a \"surrogate martyr\"[4]80 of himself. He feels miserable since not only his love but also his idea about arts is being rejected. \"Your growing cold to me is awful， incredible， as though I had woken up and found this lake had suddenly dried up or sunk into the earth，\" as he says to Nina， \"My play was not liked， you despise my inspiration， you already consider me commonplace， insignificant， like so many others...\" [7]（34）. Growing up as the son of a famous actress， and one who is critical of the traditional theatre， Treplev always feels the pressure and frustration， \"when in her drawing—room all these artists and authors graciously noticed me， I always fancied from their faces that they were taking the measure of my insignificance——I guessed their thoughts and suffered from the humiliation\" [7]（8）. Thus when he fails to earn either Nina’s love or her respect for his work， everything for him becomes unbearable. He kills the seagull as a symbolic action to express his miseries. The death of the seagull also predicts Treplev's later suicide attempt and his ultimate defeat.

“The seagull” becomes significant to Nina when she falls in love with Trigorin， a famous writer and the lover of Treplev's mother， who compares her to a seagull， which is free and happy. And inspired by that image， he thinks of a subject for a story， \"a young girl， such as you， has lived all her life beside a lake； she loves the lake like a seagull...but a mans comes by chance， sees her， and having nothing better to do， destroys her like that seagull here （the one killed by Treplev）\"[7]（40）. Being exited about talking to her idol and being part of his new story， Nina utters “it’s a dream”， imagining herself as that seagull—like girl and falling in love with the man who comes to her by chance. Though she knows that story ends up with the girl being destroyed like the killed seagull， she chooses to give the man everything she has—“If ever my life can be of use to you， come and take it”. For Nina， the destroyed seagull is a symbol of sacrifice for romantic and great love. And to be with this successful and famous artist or to be “any use” to him not only means to be loved but also means to be closer to arts.

Just like the girl in Trigorin’s story， Nina is abandoned at the end. She gives birth to a child but the child dies. And then she has to make a living by taking part in some minor performances. When Nina writes to her former lover and friend Treplev， she signs herself “the Seagull”， which is a symbol of the destroyed one. But different from Treplev who commits suicide， Nina eventually comes to understand what means to be an artist and rejects to be a victim：

“I am a seagull. No that’s not it， thought…Do you remember you shot a seagull？ A man came by chance， saw it and， just to pass the time， destroyed it…That’s not it， though… Now I am not like that. I am a real actress…I am intoxicated when I am on the stage and feel that I am splendid. And since I have been here， I keep walking about and thinking， thinking and feeling that my soul is getting stronger every day. Now I know， I understand， Kostya， that in our work—in acting or writing—what matters is not fame， not glory， not what in dreamed of， but knowing how to be patient. To bear one’s cross and have faith” [7]（75）.

The apparently disordered words are actually a turning point for Nina and for the whole play. By denying the seagull， Nina “rejects not only Treplev’s martyr—bird， but Trigorin’s fictitious happy—free—and—then—ruined creature”[9]. She finds her own value of life and comes to her own understanding of arts. She turns her life from a defeat to a triumph and grows up into a new self.

Nina’s story with Trigorin is not a new one： an innocent young woman falls in love with a successful man but is abandoned by him in the end. If the story itself is shown to the audience， much pity and sympathy will be aroused， however， this is not what Chekhov wants to give in this play. Thus he moves off those plots， “cools the play down” and shows “Nina’s movement into spiritual and psychological maturity”[6] 95 through her changing attitude towards the seagull image and the meaning of being an artist. Her conversation with Trigorin about how unglamorous and artist’s life really is becomes the beginning of her education and she completes her maturation when she talks to Treplev about how she feels living as a true actress with faith. And her rejection to be the seagull is a sign of her maturity. She manages to survive though she has to abandon her romantic views towards love and arts and compromise with the reality. This is how the technique of “indirect action” works with symbols. The former allows “reflectiveness to control sensation” and it enables the audience to “experience the play more as a pattern of animate consciousness， a set of moral and psychic rhythms and discoveries than as a narrow， emotionally overwrought tale” [6]96， while the latter embodies with varied and rich meanings， making the conversations more effective means to convey the playwright’s message. And as Borney has pointed out， Chekhov is a “cautious optimist”[1]135. By creating a character like Nina， he is sending us a very important message： If the world is anti—romantic and life is full of hardships， one needs to face them with faith and courageous endurance.

參考文獻(xiàn)：

[1]、 Borney， Geoffrey. Interpreting Chehkov[M]. Australian National University E Press， 2006.

[2]、 Braun， Edward. The Director and the Stage[M]， Methuen， London， 1982：65.

[3]、 Gottlieb， Vera. ‘Chekhov in Limbo： British Productions of the Plays of Chekhov’[A]， in Scolnicov H. and Holland， P.， eds， The Play Out of Context： Transferring Plays from Culture to Culture[C]， Cambridge University Press， Cambridge， 1989：163.

[4]、 Senelick， Laurence. Macmillan Modern Dramatists： Anton Chekhov[M]. London Macmillan Publishers LTD， 1985.

[5]、 Hingliey， Ronald. Chekhov： a Biographical and Critical Study[M]. London： George Allen Unwin LTD， 1950.

[6]、 Gilman， Richard. Chekhov’s Plays： an Opening into Eternity[M]. New York and London： Yale University Press， 1995.

[7]、 Chekhov， Anton. Select English Plays： The Seagull[M]. Shanghai： Then Commercial Press LTD， 1970.

[8]、 Senelick， Laurence. ‘Chekhov and the Irresistible Symbol： A Response to Peter Holland’[A]， in Redmond， J.， Drama and Symbolism： Themes in Drama 4[M]， Cambridge University Press， Cambridge， 1982：246.