A MONTH IN THE COUNTRY

by Ivan Howlett  
Plays and Players 

        As the seasons go by, the regular Chichester-goer collects an armful of glossy souvenir programs—grandly prepared booklets containing so much information about the plays, the playwrights and past productions that you hardly need to stay on for the show.  But that would mean missing the glossy technical excellence that is the hallmark of a Chichester production.  And, of course, the essence of the whole occasion—a summer evening in Sussex, with supper to follow.
     
Uniquely this year’s program has a full-page advert for the Artistic Director’s latest recordings.  A pity, perhaps, that Sir John Clements never told us of his latest chart-busters in that way.  However, Keith Michell, the new man writes of his choice of the plays for the 1974 season.  Of the fourth he says:  A Month in the Country, a beautiful comedy of midsummer madness, has an eminently suitable title for Oaklands Park.  Before the season opened one’s instinct was that with Dorothy Tutin leading the cast and Toby Robertson as Mr. Michell’s chosen director, this would be the high spot of the season.  In the event it was its sole saving grace.  Not merely because the other three productions were so disappointing, but because it provided genuine theatre by any standards.
      From an aristocratic background, Ivan Turgenev was used to summering in the country, either on the family estate or in the years preceding 1850 at the Chateau de Courtavenel, the French country home of the actress-singer Madame Pauline Viardot whom he loved, hopelessly, until he died.  At Courtavenel, Turgenev occupied an uneasy position, neither exactly guest nor retainer.
      His play has its life in a similar sort of limbo, a situation seemingly trivial but in fact criss-crossed with the inevitably frustrated emotional wires that vibrate in such apparent emptiness.  The characters flirt with reality only to find themselves ill-equipped for the consequences.  Mr. Robertson pits the stifling, enclosing forces—the family, habit, marriage roles, the aging process, the erosion of freshness in relationships—strongly against the pressures which try vainly to break out—the individual egos, the need for new experience.  And Miss Tutin’s shifting, restless reading of the central character, Natalya, makes the struggle red-blooded.  The developing emotions are charted with a satisfying accuracy through Turgenev’s mounting climaxes, progressing as they do through a series of duologues.  And we are presented with a teasingly ironic commentary on the absurdity of all human passions.  In that sense the play is Chekhovian, and this is the mood Mr. Robertson captures.
      Natalya is the wife of a wealthy, but plain-minded working landowner, Islayev (John Turner), whom—she thinks anyway—she no longer loves.  She herself is loved by the resident family friend Rakitin (Derek Jacobi), who no longer holds any interest for her.  Their amorous fencings have been whittled away over four years to mere empty rehearsings—‘lace-weaving’ she calls it. Flightily, temperamentally and spitefully she swings away from him and looks, impetuously, but never with great conviction towards Belayev, (Nicholas Clay), the young tutor to her children.  Then the practicalities emerge.  The natural partner for Belayev would seem to be her teenage ward, Verochka, who has already fallen for him.  Once embarked on her search for a new involvement, Natalya has to descend into uncharacteristic heartlessness.  Deviously she attempts to quell her own jealousy by agreeing to marry off Verochka to a man who is no more than a fat old fool—and this with a show of sisterly affection as she makes the offer Verochka.
      In her scenes with Belayev, Natalya is haughty, faltering, uselessly passionate, matter-of-fact, and apologetic in turns—sometimes the mercurial Miss Tutin seems to be all these things in the course of a sentence.  Her feelings for him are impossible to communicate fully, and in the unlikely event of Belayev ever presuming to return her love, their relationship would become as stultified as her previous affair with Rakitin.  Sadly, then, and pathetically, Natalya’s passion is hopeless, still-born.  For Rakitin, the man displaced, the only option is to retreat with minimum loss of dignity.
      Derek Jacobi gives Miss Tutin precisely the room and emotional space she requires.  His is an exquisitely poised performance, which never overshadows, and never becomes over-bearing.  Where lesser actors would have mishandled the situation, and thus possibly destroyed the balance of the play, Mr. Jacobi works through Rakitin’s mental anguish gradually, and quietly introduces the character’s brave decision to leave the household—which he does as the events come to their inevitably negative conclusion.
      The third principal figure and the raucous fool at the feast is Timothy West’s splendidly played doctor, Schpigelsky, malicious, cynical, self-centered, a scornful bidder at the cattle-market of human relationships, an essential feature of Turgenev’s overall view, sure-footed crushing through the romantic imaginings of Natalya’s heart.
      What makes Mr. Robertson’s production so superior to Chichester’s previous offerings this year is that it is acted from the inside and as a whole.  Its balance, shape and strength come from a cast that are together and working off each other to the extent that there can be dramatic truth.  And if there’s one thing that the Chichester stage unmasks, it is phoniness—the redundance of the non-essential.  Tonight We Improvise  and Oedipus Tyrannus both fell for the mistake of playing with the theatre’s apparent capacity for novelty.  The instrument was used to air its stops rather than for purpose of making music.  The Confederacy failed too because a style was presented rather than a play.  It was an amalgam of what is commonly recognized as Restoration comedy acting, where a straight and unified reading of a pungent piece of theater should have been the aim.
      But this is no time to censure the overall efforts of an Artistic Director new to a theatre the precise strengths of which are difficult to analyze. The interest will be in the adjustments he sees fit to make for next year’s productions, particularly in his choice of play and directors.

Back to Articles Index