The Cherry Orchard

Michael Cacoyannis seems strangely reluctant to tell this story in a straightforward, understandable fashion. This ridiculously edited film rates a 7 out of 10 only because it does, in its idiosyncratic way, convey something of the story of a Russian woman, of the landed gentry, fallen on hard times, who is desperately seeking to preserve the ownership of her estate, on which is an ancient and beloved cherry orchard. If she is forced to sell, the orchard will be cut down and the estate "developed" into "affordable housing". So what else is new, eh?

By all, this is the choppiest editing and directing style I have ever encountered. Chekhov's play is certainly not constructed this way. There is no effort to introduce characters in an orderly fashion so that one may get to know who they are, and what their relationships and motivations are. Some of this eventually emerges if you are patient and alert enough, but don't blink! Some of the cast work is excellent. They must have been frustrated, though, if they knew what kind of editing would appear in the final cut.

In this era of gratuitous special effects and uneven, even shoddy, production, one cannot depend on Hollywood to successfully transfer a stage play to the screen. This movie is partially the exception, as the movie amazingly pulls itself together in midstream to become a commendable work of art. The first part of this movie is a cinematic disaster. It's boring, slow, and muddled, with a terrible first ten minutes which is supposed to provide some background information about some of the main characters but which is totally disconnected from the main body of the story itself which takes place in a completely different venue. Then as this movie is heading toward a complete cinematic breakdown it amazingly recovers its strength and vitality and becomes crisp, sharp, focused and coherent, conveying a poignant story about torment and suffering in time of change. From that point on all the performances are great, especially that of Michael Gough, Alan Bates and the beautiful Charlotte Rampling who succeeds in capturing the essence of the woman whose whole world is being turned upside down. But despite the strong finish, that one first has to endure a truly bad start before getting to the good part makes this movie a tedious cinematic experience.

People leave rooms, enter rooms. Peep through windows. Hide behind doors. Everyone behaves as if they've just lost their best friend. It's all so melodramatic. There's a piano score by Tchaikovsky that plays relentlessly on the soundtrack so as to cue us to the perpetual state of melancholy. A real cheerless meandering stagey bore of a movie. Charlotte Rampling tries hard and Alan Bates looks like he wandered in from another movie.

In his adaption of Anton Chekhov's play, The Cherry Orchard, Mihalis Kakogiannis shows a great deal of respect for the 19th century Russian play. In fact, Mihalis shows so much respect for it that he tried to have the film flow and seem very much like a play. Although the technique is an interesting way of trying to adapt a play to film, it ultimately leaves the audience wishing for less of a boisterous staged feel and more of a subtle real life feeling that film can so wonderfully produce. To Mihalis' misfortune the over animated and often over dramatized characters do more to take the audience out of the film than it does to push them into the story. Although the staged feel to The Cherry Orchard does make the film seem to drag on without the interest one would find in a lifelike representation of the events, there is several very significant themes that are important to Russian history that come across very nicely in the film.

One of the most interesting aspects of The Cherry Orchard is the way that we see the very different reactions to the emancipation of the serfs. If we look at the two "main" characters of the film, Madame Ranevskaya and Gayev, we see two people that are having a very hard time adjusting to the realities of the serfs being freed. They're not only in constant denial of the economic state of their estate but they are also oblivious to the possibility that former serfs are gaining both power and respect. If we look at how the film expresses the Raznichintzhe class, we see two different expressions. First we see Lopakhin that represents the emerging merchant class in Russian. Although Lopakhin was a former slave, by the end of the film we see that he wields the most respect and power through the active and hard work that he has done as a free citizen. Now on the other hand, Trofimov represents the Intelligentsia class that is emerging towards the later part of the 19th century. His nickname as the perpetual student gives away that he is not about working and doing business in a capitalist society, instead he talks of enacting greater change to help the uneducated freed serf class that now has a ton of freedom and not a whole lot to do with it. Now as Lopakhin showed one of the possibilities for freed serfs Firs showed another. Firs represents a relic of the past, a serf that was more content with being a serf and serving than being forgotten and left behind in the new society. Which is exactly what happens to firs at the end of the movie. Just like Firs, older serfs that could not enjoy the full expanse of their newfound freedom were in a way left behind by society. Although as a movie I believe that The Cherry Orchard could have been a little more intriguing had the director strayed further way from the play format, there are still many interesting aspects to the film that make it a enjoyable piece of Russian oriented cinema. Definitely, worth the watch if you have any interest in Russian life towards the end of the 19th century.

Anton Chekhov's last play 'The Cherry Orchard' is one of his best. Other favourites being 'Three Sisters' and 'Uncle Vanya'. It is a masterclass of complex characterisation and mood, while Chekhov's characters were not what one considers "likeable" they are complex and real and he was a master at creating vivid atmosphere. There are plenty of fantastic moments in Chekhov's text, his writing style was heavily criticised and scorned at in his day but it is not a problem with me, other than taking a bit of time initially to get used to the wordiness.

To me, any film or television adaptation that dares go near Chekhov (incredibly difficult to adapt and has been adapted and performed to variable effect) deserves some kind of pat on the back. This version of 'The Cherry Orchard' has a good deal going for it, such as the lead cast and the production values, but doesn't quite come together due to primarily the pacing and that the tone of the film didn't feel right with too much of one tone and not enough of the other.

It does succeed in quite a lot of areas. The lead cast are very good, Alan Bates is very well cast in the kind of role he did so well and does intensely fierce and tortured incredibly well in a way that isn't overwrought. Charlotte Rampling also gives a thoughtful, committed performance that has fire, poignancy and elegance without being melodramatic. Michael Gough and Katrina Cartridge stand out, particularly Cartridge.

Visually, this version of 'The Cherry Orchard' is beautiful. The costumes and settings are truly sumptuous and the photography doesn't come over as static and is just as elegant. While having issues with how it was used, the music itself is hauntingly melancholic and fits very well with the tragic aspect of the story. It does help that Tchaikovsky, which it is heavy in, is one of my favourite composers and with him being a very troubled man in real life which is reflected in a lot of his music he was an ideal fit. The ending is also very moving, the play's ending itself is one of the most moving there is and it takes a lot for it to be ruined, something that none of the versions seen of 'The Cherry Orchard' have done.

However, 'The Cherry Orchard' is an example of a film that finishes a lot more strongly than it starts. Quite a lot of the pacing for my tastes is very dull, especially the truly tedious prologue that doesn't really say anything. Sometimes one sees a film etc that has a scene that comes over as neither interesting or necessary, and the prologue here is one of those films. It also suffers from the opposite issue the generally quite impressive National Theatre Live production had, which succeeded brilliantly in the comedic elements but under cooked some of the drama. Here the dramatic moments have moments where it is very moving and melancholic, but as an adaptation no matter how faithful it is in detail it comes over as over-serious from the satire being pretty much missing.

Did find a lot of the supporting cast to be too hammy, that is including the usually fun to watch Frances De La Tour (one of the worst offenders in my view actually). While the music is beautiful, it perhaps could have been used less and not emphasised the mood as much as it does. It is stodgy in direction too, especially in the early stages, and even for a wordy play the film feels too much so because of the momentum not being there.

In conclusion, watchable but underwhelming considering the source material and the cast. 5/10.