Fiks: “Chekhov is nostalgic, his world is attractive and seductive”

Fiks: “Chekhov is nostalgic, his world is attractive and seductive”
Fiks: “Chekhov is nostalgic, his world is attractive and seductive”

“Chekhov laughs and laments the phrase ‘All past time was better’. What did we do with our life and what do we do with what remains, however much or little time it may be?” says Lisandro Fiks, that adapted “Seagull” to our days and titled it “How beautiful everything was before.”

It is presented on Sundays at 5 pm at the Moscow Theater, Ramírez de Velazco 535, and features performances by Romina Fernandes, Francisco Lumerman, Catherine Biquard, Guillermo Aragones, Martina Zalazar and the same Fikswith whom we spoke.

Journalist: Comedy is tragedy plus time, how can we expand on that concept and how is it applied in the play?

Lisandro Fiks: “The Seagull” is still a tragedy, but Chekhov announces that it is a comedy. I try to distance myself emotionally from the characters in relation to these two years that happen between the third and fourth acts, just like in The Seagull, and see how in their attempt to change their destiny they do not succeed. Seeing things with a little more perspective is what contributes to the comedy, but the circumstances of each one are still a tragedy. Seen as a whole, they are not happy, they make wrong decisions, as is the Chekhovian world. But they are still lovable and understandable. So when a character likes something but in reality life goes by in a certain way, and he continues to regret it over time, there comes a point where it is funny, because he did not take the necessary measures to be able to modify his present.

Q: The title is very nostalgic, as is the idea of ​​a youth that had dreams to fulfill. What questions does it raise?

LF: Chekhov and his theatre, which is based on this premise, are nostalgic and speak of many generations, those who are successful and do not enjoy it, those who are successful and do not want it. Chekhov’s great charm lies in showing us these nostalgic realities, seeing that all people tell a story to each other, and that is where Chekhov’s greatness lies. He can see this.


Q: What else can you say about the Chekhovian world and why did you want to remake this classic?

LF: His world is attractive and seductive, it was a radical change in theatre, it was one of those revolutions that appear. It is a theatre that goes beyond action, that investigates what is not said and what is not done. It took me a long time to understand Chekhov and see that there are many layers in his theatre and I trained for many years with Augusto Fernández. He taught me to understand it, that there are many more layers and a lot of humour. “The Seagull” is so attractive to rewrite because it is bringing the text closer to the present, making the attempt is to respect the author, who always writes the works for his present, and when they are performed so long after, they lose identification with the public. So I take a work, one like this one that is dreamlike, and I bring it as close as possible. The Seagull is an emblematic text, it is a guiding light for someone in theatre.

Q: What questions arise about this well-off bourgeoisie? Does the bourgeoisie exist? How can we define it?

LF: It is not the same bourgeoisie as in “The Seagull”, but there is a well-off class to which all of us who can afford to have a cell phone, a more or less settled life, with time to think about our existence and follow an artistic discipline, a sport or a hobby belong. Chekhov relies on that and on the different social classes, the landlady of the house, the famous director and actress and the people who survive the passage of time, thinking, without going out to fight for it. It is a broad spectrum but recognizable in our environment. Anyone who sits in the theater belongs to that group, and any actor who dedicates himself to theater as well. It is a close world.

Q: It addresses the themes of art, cinema, actors, directors. What does the work propose in relation to that world?

LF: The original also talks about actors and theatre authors, I brought it to the cinema because I found it more identifiable. It talks about the values ​​in which we are immersed as participants in that world, what it means to choose a role in a more artistic or more commercial production. And to have fun or get bored with both. Chekhov splits into an author who follows the traditional form and another who wants to break it, because he doesn’t give any answers either, he doesn’t criticize, he exposes them, I try to do something similar. It is the question about art in “The Seagull.”

Q: How was the premiere and how is theatre and culture today?

LF: The audience laughed and cried at the same time, and it is an achievement that a play that was written as a comedy but was rarely taken as a comedy, awakens humor. The theater is going through an absolute crisis, the audience has dropped, I just finished doing “La gran renuncia” at Paseo La Plaza and it was very difficult, except for rare exceptions the theater has dropped a lot. Culture is in jeopardy, we live in a time where people who dedicate ourselves to culture are being stigmatized, that is a huge and painful problem. I hope it changes soon.

Source: Ambito

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest Posts

TV comeback on ORF for Roman Rafreider

TV comeback on ORF for Roman Rafreider

Roman Rafreider The ORF confirmed this to the “Salzburger Nachrichten”. Most recently, he stepped in for the afternoon news programs “Aktuell nach eins” and “Aktuell