The Seagull -Actors take second place to designers in the theatre of the 21st century Discuss the above statement in relation to the play you have seen in performance compared to its original performance conditions.

Whereas in the 19th century, when this play was originally formed, the set would be perfectly detailed, down to every last leaf on the trees, leaving nothing to the imagination. Although the level of detail would be difficult to obtain, the job of the designer was simply to make the play more realistic for the audience, and would have very little impact on how it was perceived. Nowadays, each choice made by the designer should be conveying something about the story or the characters. For example, in our production, eclectic mix of washed out and uninteresting furniture pushed the audience’s focus where it was needed, such as the gun left by the door in act 4. This shows the designer has more impact than before on the play, effected how we see the story, but also the characters.

Once particular instance where you notice the extent of Croft’s influence is Nina’s costumes. In the earlier acts, her clothes are very childlike, with dungaree’s and floral summer dresses, to the large overcoat and dull colours we see in act 4.It emphasises the loss of her childhood and happiness. This may also be represented in the blood stained white outfit we see her wearing earlier in Konstantin’s play. This influence Croft has on our view of the characters emphasises her importance in the play. If she has a part in our view of character’s as well as story, then surely she is one of the most important people in this play, second only to Honer.

But the actors are also crucial to a decent play. The best instance of this in when Arkadina is bandaging Konstantin’s head. Although the costumes, such as Konstantin dressed all in black, mourning his life and some of the actions will be created by Honer and Croft, the small looks, touches and chemistry between the characters is what makes the scene, and this is all down to the actors.

In the original performance, the costumes were more focused on accuracy than symbolism and the actions of the characters where meticulously planned out by the director, Stanislavski, and so the actions had very little room to personally develop their characters.  Stanislavski later regretted this and disowned that method of directing, saying that it was “ignoring the inner emotions of the actor”.

So you can see already that both the actors and the designers have had much more impact on Honer’s production than they would have had on the original. But do either of them have more impact than the other?

Designers nowadays have many more options open to them in terms of set, lighting and sound, due to the development of technology. In its original conditions, the play would have had electric lighting, but only dimming effects at the time. The sound effects where very detailed but all had to be created naturally in some way. Whereas in Honer’s production, there was much more available, such as the use of microphones in Konstantin’s play. But the best example is the cyclorama. Croft used this cyclorama throughout to not only show the time of day and weather, but also to set the mood for each scene, such as the dark, miserable colours when Nina returns.

Overall, I find that whilst both designers and actors have a massive impact on the plays, I do agree that actors take second place to designers in the 21st century. The development of technology has given more scope, but it is mainly down to the changes in the nature of theatre. Symbolism is much more important that realism, and as such the design of the play communicates a lot more with the audience than in the 19th century.  But if a play is to be successful, the director, designer and actors must work together.