vanya

Uchechi Ohanu Professor Richmond THEA 2000 27 February 2017 //Vanya and Sonia and Masha and Spike // This play was unlike any other play I could name or have ever experienced. It was basically a coming-of-age movie-type play. However, instead of showing the journey that a slowly self-aware teenager takes to better himself or herself in a mature way and undergo a life-changing experience when confronted with a huge problem, the play depicts the story of three middle-aged adults who realize the truth about themselves and their lives. Vanya and Sonia are the two main characters who are in their 50s and living in their family home without jobs, money, or happiness, the latter of which is fully realized when their younger celebrity sister, Masha comes home from her movie star life—with her significantly younger and silly boyfriend Spike—to tell them she’s selling their childhood home, as forewarned by their psychic housemaid. This is the trigger for the homebodies Vanya and especially Sonia, who realizes she has never lived, loved, or laughed. The family goes through chaos and tears over the following days leading up to a costume party.  I believe the author told the story extremely well, and not through my biased opinion. From the lighting and scenery, to the lines voiced by the actors and the personality given to the characters, the audience could understand the plot pretty clearly. The story was pretty straightforward and told directly to the audience without embellishment. The stage is set up in a glowing, happy-looking and cozy home that contains the gloomiest of people, an ironic twist that is very emphasized throughout the play. The only hindrances to the full embracement of the idea of adults trying to find their purpose and happiness in life was the unnecessary addition of the character Spike. The character itself was important to convey Masha’s portion and perspective of the play, as in to show how eventually even she realized how unsatisfied she was with her barley famous and lonely life of failed marriages and increasing age. However, sometimes Spike’s written character came off as just ‘too much’ and too insincerely charismatic. When serious scenes and moments would occur, such as Vanya giving his monologue about the current spoiled and ungrateful, fast-paced generation, Spike’s character would still try to make jokes, almost ruining the moment and belittling the deeper and seriousness undertone of the realistic production concept: never living your dream or being unsatisfied with your current dull life. Also, the author could have elaborated more or spent more time on discussing how Vanya and Sonia came to their current lives, and maybe include more backstory on the two of them as characters themselves. Why was Sonia already so mad in the beginning? Has she always been that bipolar or was it a gradual development? When did Vanya realize he was gay and did his parents accept him? When did Masha leave to make money for the family and why did she think it was up to her to do it? The author could have included more of their growing up lives instead of just mainly focusing on their current lives so we could get more of a feel and deeper understanding of the story as intended by the author. However, besides that each character was depicted and understood well enough. For example, you could instantly sympathize for Sonia who seemed to be a lonely, out-of-place typical adopted sister that never fully felt like she belonged and was always second best or at least overlooked by Masha. The hilarious and uniquely unpolished sense of humor was constant throughout the play though, showing that the author didn’t intend for this play to be a droopy bleak and depressing play about middle aged adults who argue with each other.  This is why I truly assert that the plot was important and not a waste of time. Many plays contain very overdramatic, superficial, imaginative plots that end up having a weird, fantasy-type story line that at the end of the play doesn’t connect you to it or leave an imprint in your memory besides vast entertainment. The ones that are worthwhile are the ones with realistic stories conveyed, such as the scary consciousness that your life, like Sonia’s, literally consists of nothing but your pseudo brother and broken coffee mugs. This play opened our eyes to our deep inner fears of the future, such as never getting married, or better yet going through divorces; never accomplishing that unknown out of reach career; never living a spontaneous, fun-filled life full of laughter and excitement. All of these are conveyed by the author in this plot. The worthwhile plots showcase natural lightings and scenery that look exactly like something you have seen before like a living room with warm, golden sunlight streaming through the windows in the morning and comfy green couches made for sitting and soaking in, or the grumbling noises of a car pulling into a driveway with bright headlights, as if it was really there. Vanya and Sonia have to face a scary realization and an even scarier obstacle of change, and for me, change is the scariest obstacle I face. The actors who play these characters make the plot that much better. The actress who played Masha was fantastic in every way. She looked every bit the self-centered, passively bitter, dramatic 40-year-old single woman who isn’t as special and important as she thought she was, which is why she dives into a sex-filled relationship with a 20-year old something guy just to feel sexy, happy, any emotion. I think most of the cast was perfect for their roles and brought life to the written characters. Sonia was the perfect self-pitying underdog that ended up getting her shot at happiness. The author really wanted us to fall in love with wallflower, tiny Sonia and root for her happy ending, and the author succeeded. The only setback was the actress’s age because she looked extremely young, even younger than Masha’s character, and not in her late 50’s. Vanya was the long-suffering older brother who, although not as stressed about his doomed life as the girls were, still helped convey the gloomy plot. I think the character and actress of Nina was very unnecessary, or at least her purpose remains unknown to me. I’m not sure how she helped convey the author’s purpose of the play because if she wasn’t in the play, the play could have still gone on without too many hitches. If anything, her role confused me because it seemed almost random and awkwardly placed. I thought she and Spike were falling in love or at least that she would really twist up the plot in a dramatic way. The psychic, although seemingly silly, helped act as a foreshadow for the audience as to what will be intended next by the author. The physical production was superbly realistic. It wasn’t over the top, which is good because the author obviously didn’t want to convey the play as some dramatic Shakespearean-type play. The stage was literally out of your home, with a floral couch, a coffee table, a fireplace, ceiling lights set on a low glow to provide warmth for the stage and audience, all encased in a woodsy vibe and earthy tones. It was all the makings of what you would expect a childhood home that you grew up in would look like back in the ‘good ole days’, or at least would hope for. The fact that it was in a proscenium type arrangement made it even easier for everyone to see it full on. Also, the scene never changed in set up, making it more realistic because usually we are in the same natural setting constantly. The audience responded to this scenery and the plot itself in a positive manner. As a member, I could see and hear how we all laughed at the same funny lines, such as Masha and Sonia crying dramatically and cringe-worthy over their sad lonely lives, how we ‘tsked’ and ‘ooohed’ at the aggressive kissing moment between Masha and Spike, how we all fell in love with sad Sonia and just wanted to cuddle her and make her smile when she was down, just because most likely we all have been in her insecure stage of life at least once. It’s hard to explain, but even if the audience as a whole never muttered or gasped or make any physical sign of their responses, when you’re in the audience of a play so funny, real, and captivatingly likeable as this one, you can absorb the emotions and happiness from the people around you—you can just tell they’re enjoying it or hating it as much as you are. Even though there were some parts that were mumbled too quietly or too quickly to be heard, or jokes that went right over my head, I still laughed or reacted accordingly because of the audience’s influence on me. I probably wouldn’t have made so many physical sounds if I was watching the play by myself. The audience made everything Vanya said funnier, more lively, wittier, and just more. As much as I loved the play, I don’t think I could effectively convince my particular set of friends to see the play for $12. I especially couldn’t without reading any reviews because I wouldn’t know how to succinctly outline the plot without rambling and telling the whole play. Reading the reviews would help me remember what to point out, like the significant parts, such as the costume party that they all attended, and what the big argument between Sonia and Masha was really about: their misconstrued jealousy over each other growing up. I never really talk to my friends about plays as this is my first theatre type class, so this is not in the range of topics I would remember to bring up again after I watched it. I would talk to the people in my theatre class about this show just because it was so good and such a different experience for me. Despite my deep interest in this play, I probably would not seek out other plays by this author. If they happened to fall in my path, I would probably be interested, but not enough to look for them myself. I only do that with romance novels.