A Glance at Anton Chekhov’s “Ivanov”

His concerns in approach or experimentalism or any other fields are rooted in the conditions set by Kouhestani for staging “Ivanov”. His conditions are performing a classic drama with loyalty to the story’s details, characters and their relationship in a contemporary form and language that is known for audience.
Realistic ambiance of “Ivanov” links Kouhestani to the Russian playwright Chekhov. This could be seen in page one of the brochure of Kouhestani’s play; “Ivanov” by Anton Chekhov. This means despite evident changes in the original play, especially its different ending (no reference to Ivanov’s suicide), an audience can still see Chekhov’s “Ivanov” on stage in Iranshahr auditorium.
In the years “Ivanov” was written (1887), critical realism was an unwritten style of playwrights although they called it artistic realism. Gyorgy Lukacs (Hungarian philosopher) was an influential literary critic, contributing especially to theories of realism. His views sparked many debates between advocates and critics of his theories. His realistic approach to literature was that the character or type has behavior and condition that has believable alter ego in the real society.
The auteur approach of Kouhestani in adaptation of Chekhov’s play is actually based on Luckacs’ critical realism theories. Kouhestani is loyal to the story’s details, characters and their relationships while taking into account that the play’s characters must look like to those of the society. In other words Kouhestani understands Chekhov’s purpose and has also artistically employed contemporary alternatives in a way that his play is still completely close to the original “Ivanov”.   
Although realism is the dominant atmosphere in Chekhov’s plays, this realism must be considered within the context of that period’s conditions and characteristics of classic works. This means although characters are real and touchable, one should not forget Chekhov’s “Ivanov” which was written in four acts with a special purpose for each one.    
With his auteur approach, Kouhestani has focused mainly on realism and advocates realism everywhere. The first and most important point of Kouhestani’s adaptation is that he understands the idea of this drama. A puzzle is drafted in each Chekhov’s play to develop a drama compatible with his purpose. In “Ivanov” this puzzle is in four acts with certain structure and any change or elimination in play’s narration must be replaced with a new alternative to complete the puzzle. This is where the characteristics of Chekhov’s plays show themselves, meaning that the replacing alternative by any independent mind either writer or dramatist could practically distance the drama from its main goal and has no other function. If the dramatist lacks deep understanding of the drama, its structure and content would change in a way it does not practically move toward its goal.   
However, it should be added that loyalty to the “Ivanov’s” structure and Chekhov’s acts have not made Kouhestani not to take realities of his society into account or use narration brevity and blend events of each act thanks to his knowledge of Iranian audience.
Some characters are taken out of the play in a natural way under such approach. But the elimination of characters is based on the type of realism Kouhestani pursues seriously.
Consider second act of the play (Sasha’s Birthday) as Chekhov creates some characters constantly playing and discussing on issues to show how empty and motiveless that class of society are.  Kouhestani has reasonably ignored this characters and correctly pictured Kosich in his play. He created a character whose major part of presence on the stage is related to a modern gadget (cell phone). The idea is not only respect Chekhov’s creation but also shows unique talent of Kouhestani in making characters believable.
One of the most important characteristics of Chekhov’s works is that classic features are woven into their structures and characters. Chekhov’s characters have numerous mental, political and cultural details. This is reflected in their language and dialogues, which could be understood even by incomplete Persian translation of his plays. The auteur approach requires the spirit of the play to be transferred from source language into the target language. Documentary approach of Kouhestani has assisted him in writing his own play to have a simple not pompous and grandiloquent language. This language has saved both the realistic aspects and is also close to local culture of characters as aimed by Chekhov.  
Creation of an atmosphere that can touch the audience is another important principle observed by Kouhestani in line with realism during staging “Ivanov”. It’s the principle misunderstood by majority of directors and dramatists working on foreign plays. This principle paves the ground for the audience to link with characters because as it is clear that formation of a theatrical atmosphere, besides the chosen set, is result of behavior and dialogue of characters. The creative choice of the set where events happen shows how much Kouhestani is loyal to the original text. Passiveness and numbness of characters are conveyed in the best way through their stillness on couch in the living room and a large bed in the bedroom. But the director does not sacrifice realism for the content here, too. With correct choice of the set, he takes both the text and the audience simultaneously into account. Such preciseness in choice of the set could be seen in the beginning of the third act particularly. It’s a scene Borkin is placing meat on the skewer to make kebab while sitting on the bed in the bedroom and Kosich and Lebedieff are near him. Although the dialogue among characters has nothing in common with their action (making kebab on a bed), director’s choice of an element known by Iranian audience (kebab, which is a traditional Persian meal) introduce the situation in the beginning of the third act and after entr’acte very well.
The known parameters like learning a language, virtual connection, role and function of cell phone and … other elements seen in behavior and dialogue of characters also create an atmosphere which is close to daily life of people in Iran. Kouhestani respect brevity, too. He creates a solitary atmosphere to attract attention of the audience to interactions of characters and make their actions real.  
This criticism describes just generalities on auteur and correct approach of Kouhestani. He is a playwright and director, who has worked on a classic text with realistic characteristic in a way that challenges today’s audience through borrowing realistic elements of their today’s life. This is the approach our today’s theater misses in many similar cases.