The Seagull is no Albatross

The Seagull is a modern dramatic masterpiece that changes the dynamic and landscape of theater. Anton Chekhov’s work is one of subtlety, yet one that speaks volumes about traditional theater. When I first thought about this play, when I first started reading it, I thought that Chekhov was the precursor to Larry David. This clearly had to be the first “show about nothing.” I quickly realized that that line of thought would get me nowhere. So, I moved on and thought about my expectations and prejudices going into the play. I’ve read a few Chekhov stories prior, along with Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and even modern Russian greats like Nabokov. As much as I enjoy Dostoevsky and Nabokov, I can say that my overall expectation and notion of Russian literature is that it is immensely self-referential and ethnocentric. Yet, Chekhov tries to counter my bias by instantly and multiply referring to Hamlet. It isn’t until deep into the play that Chekhov mentions the giant shadow in which he is working: “Yes, it’s charming, it’s clever…Charming, but nowhere near Tolstoy” (31). However, this reference to Tolstoy is not used by Chekhov to be self-referential or ethnocentric, but to illustrate the oppressive nature of Russian literature. Chekhov is seemingly using the character of Trigorin to voice his displeasure in Russian literary critique and representation.

So, Chekhov has already broken away from the Russian shadow of the Russian Golden Age, now what exactly am I to make of The Seagull? Chekhov takes away the main method of interpretation so that his play must stand on its own. It’s at this point that I began to notice the “forced” symbolism being implemented throughout the play. On its surface, this is a play that focuses on the inter-relations of a dysfunctional, but all too normal, family. The play deals with the misfiring of communication and love. Yet, through all of this, Chekhov sprinkles symbols and metaphors into the play. These symbols, however, don’t move the plot or the play. Above all else, these symbols don’t move the characters. I feel like The Seagull is a play of false symbolism. By this I mean that Chekhov invokes the mood and structure of symbolism in a tongue-in-cheek manner. The symbols that Chekhov uses either don’t refer back to anything, or are superficial and spelled out for the viewer/reader.

First, The Seagull utilizes Hamlet throughout the play. For the most part, when references are made to Hamlet Chekhov makes it known, there is no need for the viewer/reader to have a copy of Shakespeare with them, nor is there need to possess prior knowledge of the play. For traditional theater, when the dramatist makes reference to a prior play or work of art, it’s either subtle, or used to add depth and foreshadow some event. The Seagull is different. In fact, Chekov uses Hamlet to build or provoke the viewer/reader into speculation about the play’s end. This proves to be unfruitful. Chekov wastes no time in invoking the Hamlet references:

Arkadina. “’O Hamlet, speak no more:

Thou turn’st mine eyes into my very soul;

And there I see such black and grained spots

As will not leave their tinct.”’

Konstantin. “’Nay, but to live

In the rank sweat of an enseamed bed

Stew’d in corruption, honeying and making love

Over the nasty sty…”” (10).

This scene causes the reader to acknowledge to similarities between Konstantin and Hamlet in terms of their dissatisfaction with their mothers’ relationships. Once this reference to Hamlet is set in motion, the reader begins to notice not the obvious references, but the more subtle ones as well. For instance, in act two, Arkadina is talking to Nina and Masha when she says, “I am troubled in my soul. Can anyone tell me what the matter is with my son?” To which Masha replies, “He’s sick at heart. Please—read a bit of his play!” (22) When reading this with Hamlet in one’s mind, it is easy to draw parallels to Hamlet’s mother and Ophelia.

Later, Konstantin, whom the reader now views as a Hamlet-esque character, remarks on the appearance of Trigorin, “Here comes the man with the real talent, entering like Hamlet, even down to the book. (Mimics him.) ‘Words, words, words…’” (28) Now, the reader is left to wonder how the man that is sleeping with Konstantin’s mother, the man that causes strife between Konstantin and his mother, can take the role of Hamlet. At this point, the Hamlet motif begins to unravel. The final Hamlet reference is again inferred by the reader. Chekhov has built his play around Hamlet and though the roles of the characters are in flux, the reader is still seeking the images; at the start of Act Three Trigorin remarks that Konstantin has challenged him to a duel (35). Again, Trigorin takes the role of Hamlet’s uncle, and Konstantin is again Hamlet. By the end of the play, when nothing changes and only Konstantin has died, the reader can see that Chekhov is using Shakespeare to remark on theater’s conventional methods. The Seagull talks much about new forms confronting the traditional theater, and Chekov illustrates this with the most known and classic of theater.

Aside from Chekov’s manipulation of Shakespeare, he also uses symbolism to distract and ultimately change the understanding of the play. Again, this technique is used to illustrate Chekhov’s attempt to change theater. The key element in this false symbolism is the seagull itself. Chekov is using the seagull to mock the reader’s expectation for symbolism and meaning. The seagull first appears in Act Two when Konstantin has killed it and lays it at Nina’s feet. Nina responds to this by saying, “what does that signify?” (27) When she gets no satisfactory response from Konstantin she again seeks the seagull’s meaning, “You put things obliquely all the time, in some kind of symbols. This seagull, too—this is obviously a symbol of something, but I’m sorry, I don’t know what it means” (27).

Nina, like the reader, is demanding and inferring that the seagull be a symbol. Chekhov, however, denies this demand. He instead continues to frustrate and mock theater’s use of symbolism. Perhaps the best example of Chekov mocking symbolism and convention is the scene in which Trigorin and Nina are discussing writing and fame. Chekov uses Trigorin as an embodiment of conventional writers, and thus Trigorin says, “Nothing. Just jotting something down…An idea came into my head…(Hides the book.) An idea for a short story. A girl like you, living beside a lake since she was a child. She loves the lake the way a seagull might---she’s as happy and free as a seagull. But one day by chance a man comes along and sees her. And quite idly he destroys her, like this seagull” (33). Here, Trigorin has summed up the whole of The Seagull, yet for all intents and purposes, Nina is not the main story. Trigorin, instead, has propelled Nina’s story. He has set her in motion, for late she returns and constantly refers to herself as “the seagull.” Yet, in the end, the seagull is meaningless. Trigorin has no recollection of the seagull, and it seems as though Konstantin does not either. Nina alone possess the memory of this symbol, because Nina was the one seeking its symbolism.

In the end, Chekov’s play is about people. Yet, it is more a tool to break away from conventional theater. The Seagull seeks to embody Wittenstein’s call to see life as art, to explore the mundane aspects of the everyday as though they were marvelous works of theater. The Seagull for its part, is a marvelous work of theater that seeks to capture the mundane of everyday life.