A critical analysis of Act 1 of 'The Three Sisters' by Anton Chekhov.

A critical analysis of Act 1 of ‘The Three Sisters’ by Anton Chekhov

‘The Three Sisters’ is typical of the works of Anton Chekhov in several ways. Firstly, very little actually happens; the “action” unfolds over a four-year period, and much of this time is undocumented. For this reason, many critics feel that Chekhov is boring and unappealing, thus inaccessible to the majority of the theatre-going populace. However, the opposite is true; rather than seeking plays crammed with action, tragedy, love and horror, many theatre-goers enjoy the languid style of the plays, and the immense volumes of reflection that they allow; both introspection and analysis of the situations around you occur during the progression of the play. As Chekhov himself stated; “People have dinner, merely dinner, but at that moment their happiness is being made or their life is being smashed." What this shows us is that Chekhov purposely left his plays with sparse action, to allow for a much deeper and more personal impact to be achieved- he brought the realities of life to the stage, rather than the hyperbolic romances that had obsessed British and foreign Victorian theatre and literature. There is one death in the play, yet it is commented upon with little emotion or circumstance- in the works of Dickens, or Hardy, for example, much emotive language is used to convey the impact of the death, but this robs the reader of the chance to evaluate their personal response. Chekhov’s refusal, rather than failure as it has been branded, to do this, allows for a much greater significance to be placed upon an event; some critics, rampant in cynicism, refuse to accept this, because it is so starkly different from the first impression that you receive of the play. The first Act of the play seems dull, and faceless, but, if taken at more than face-value, it is in fact incredibly significant; it lays down the foundations of the complex relationships that unfold, and introduces us to characters in a way that we do not realise. The play seems shallow, yet is in fact extraordinarily deep in its ending.

This is a preview of the whole essay

In Act 1, a whole myriad of characters is introduced. This again is typical of Chekhovian works- rather than focussing on a handful of characters, they are all brought onto stage, where many of them do nothing. This ensures that the purveyor of the scene cannot concentrate too much on one character, and has their attention broken by the various characters. This is important, because it delays the impact of the play, meaning that, when it does come, it hits far more profoundly. Many traditionalists at the time found the characters too inexpressive; they preferred one or two characters to be on the stage at one time, explicitly stating their emotions and intentions. Chekhov renounced this, and so the play begins with the sisters, and several officers, in one room. Olga, the oldest of the Prozorov sisters, feels enervated due to her job; it seems unfulfilling and sapping. She longs to return to Moscow, so that she can once again mingle with people like her, and be satisfied with life. She is wearing the dress that is typical of teachers; this shows that even on a day where she should be enjoying herself and relaxing, she is reminded of work; this perhaps shows the extent to which life has taken over her life, and so justifies her sentiments of enervation. Masha, the middle of the children, is unhappily married to Kulygin. It is revealed that Masha was married when she was 18, and felt that her husband was wise and interesting; now, however, she appreciates his kindness, but no longer views him as wise, but bluff and boring. She is wearing a black dress; this is perhaps a metaphor for her state of mind; black is the colour of mourning, and she is mourning the death of her love for Kulygin. Finally there is Irina; it is her name-day, and so she should be happy. She is wearing a white dress; white is the colour traditionally associated with

innocence, and especially in Orthodox Russia, purity of body and soul. This shows Irina to be the youngest, and perhaps most naïve of the sisters.

At the start of the Act, Olga is reminiscing upon the death of their father, that occurred one year ago to the day. The day is meant to be one of joy and festivity, yet Olga is remembering the death of their father. This immediately makes Irina distressed, and she wails “why recall it?” This moment sets the melancholy tone for the whole of the Act. Olga then continues “I remember distinctly that in Moscow at this time, at the beginning of May, everything was already in flower; it was warm, and everything was bathed in sunshine.” This is a highly romanticised view of Moscow, and shows how deep the longing is for Olga to return. Olga continues in her misery and says “Being all day in school and then at my lessons till the evening gives me a perpetual headache and thoughts as gloomy as though I were old. And really these four years that I have been at the high-school I have felt my strength and my youth oozing away from me every day.” This quotation clearly describes the feeling of enervation that I have previously described. It is impossible for anyone to be happy when in company as miserable as Olga’s, and so her selfishness is going to ruin Irina’s name-day.

Irina, now in a negative mood as well, then says “Andrey will probably be a professor…the only problem is poor Masha”. What she means by this is that Masha’s marriage, which she has come to resent, is the only impediment to the family moving back to Moscow- Masha would not be allowed to leave Kulygin, and he would not come to Moscow. However, during the play it becomes apparent that there are many factors that mean that the dream of reaching Moscow is completely unattainable.