The Actor is an Athlete of the Heart

French writer/actor/critic Antonion Artaud wrote those words in 1938. Artaud worked in theatre and film, and was hugely influential as a theorist mostly through his seminal book The Theatre and Its Double. I use this quote to express why I agree with the athlete analogy – though of more than just the heart.

We go to a team sporting event to watch the athletes – not the trainers, coaches, managers, equipment staff, etc. And we go to the theatre to watch the actors. Athletes are the ones who play the game. (See what I did there?) They are not only competitive creatures, they are masters of the present. No matter what plays coaches have drawn up, the action of a team sport (the same goes for solo sports but let’s focus on a group (cast) effort). Each player needs to make choices based on how the event is unfolding before them. It’s a combination of rigorous training and repetition followed by moment-by-moment creativity and collaboration. We can tell when it looks like an athlete is doing their own thing instead of working within a team. (In basketball, hockey and football you’ll often see a coach take them off the court/ice/field for instruction before putting them back in. In baseball it’s a conversation between innings. Hmmm, I wonder why directors can’t do that during a performance…) Audiences can innately tell when an actor is seeming “to star in their own play.”

As with actors, the physical toll of stage acting - especially in large and strenuous roles - means that offstage fitness is a must. When asked what she was doing with her free time in New York City while performing on Broadway, Angela Lansbury would answer “sleep.” She was giving it her all eight shows a week and her only thought was making sure she had full energy at curtain time. 

Every physical move is part of the story. If an actor is simply taking up space onstage when they don’t have lines to speak instead of being engaged and energized, then they are as weak a link as an athlete simply going through the motions.

There has been a rise in the use of sports psychologists over the past couple of decades. Not only do they provide useful routines for professional athletes to deal with performance stress and anxiety – ask a professional actor whether they see a therapist regularly – but these sports counselors work on visualization techniques to increase focus and concentration. If one can see themselves achieving success then it’s easier to manifest. Most actors have two sets of eyes at work on stage: one is trained on their scene partners, and one is looking from the audience point of view. Actors need to be aware of how they are being received in their storytelling role. What does their body look like and how are their gestures appropriate? Are they throwing correct focus to others on the stage…as an athlete would to their teammates in a game? Every physical move is part of the story. If an actor is simply taking up space onstage when they don’t have lines to speak instead of being engaged and energized, then they are as weak a link as an athlete simply going through the motions.

The Cherry Orchard table reads
1: Claudia Coonan
2: Sam Kinsman
3: Claudia Coonan, Miranda Rose Blood and D. Scott Adams
4: Tomas Hernandez and Jerry Bradley
(Photo Credit: Donald Brenner)

Most of us in the theatre world start out as actors, even if only in grade school. Sure, some are too shy and only willing to work backstage, but in the third grade we didn’t have any other options besides playing a shepherd or a flower. (I can almost hear my eight-year-old self now, “Yes, Miss Washington, I intend to direct Les Miserables Junior and I expect full design support. I will not play an animal in your little skit.”) We hadn’t heard of Stanislavsky or the Method or Viewpoints (all acting training techniques). We only knew that we liked to perform. We liked the attention, perhaps. We liked getting laughs and applause. As we got older, if we stayed in the profession as actors then we needed more than a curtain call. We realized that our souls, imaginations and, indeed, our hearts needed the challenge.

I love actors and always will. Fortunately, unlike most athletes, actors don’t need to retire when their bodies age. They simply play different roles. They will always be our standard-bearers. And I will always follow.

Classically Yours,

Humiliating Premieres and Flops

Thinking about the launch of The Classics Company in the new year is exciting, and filled with trepidation! Starting a new company is a huge undertaking, and something that theater-makers of the late 19th century in Russia could relate to as well.

Seeing our beautiful designs to launch the season and our company with The Seagull made me think of the Moscow Art Theatre (MXAT). Founded in 1898 by Konstantin Stanislavsky and Vladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko, they wanted to establish a theatre of new art forms and to make art available to the general public. Much like much of our own company, the original ensemble was made up of mostly non-professional actors which created strong collaboration and community. 

MXAT staged Anton Chekhov’s The Seagull its inaugural year, a play that had failed in its premiere production in St. Petersburg. With its revival of The Seagull, MXAT not only achieved its first major success but also began a long artistic association with Anton Chekhov. Even the symbol of the theater was a seagull flying into the future.

Prior to MXAT’s production of The Seagull, Chekhov had endured three humiliating premieres in Moscow and St. Petersburg. On the opening night of Ivanov in 1887, only two of the leading actors knew their lines, and other cast members were drunk. The Wood Demon, an early draft of Uncle Vanya, fared no better two years later. Half the cast forgot their lines, the actresses were dreadful, and the audience booed. If the disastrous premieres of Ivanov and The Wood Demon weren’t enough to dissuade Chekhov from writing again for the theater, the calamitous 1896 premiere of The Seagull in St. Petersburg was. The ruthless Petersburg audience howled at Chekhov’s play, taking special delight in a character’s wheelchair that kept losing its grip on the slanted stage.

“The Seagull died. It was killed by the unanimous hissing of the entire audience. As if millions of bees, wasps, bumblebees filled the air of the house: so strong and poisonous was the hissing.”

—The Peterburgsky Listok Newspaper (1896, № 288)

After the St. Petersburg flop, Chekhov was hesitant to grant anyone permission to produce his The Seagull, but he eventually agreed to let MXAT stage the Moscow premiere. 

"The Seagull is the pride of our dramatic art. They don’t understand it? But they’ll understand it soon.”

—Nemirovich-Danchenko

The production was revolutionary. Stanislavsky and Nemirovich, who co-directed the production, held twenty-six rehearsals–a significant improvement from the paltry ten rehearsals in St. Petersburg. MXAT’s detailed mise-en-scène and nuanced acting captivated Russian audiences accustomed to melodramatic clichés. Stanislavsky’s promptbook reveals the elaborate preparation that went into the production. With its careful orchestration of sounds and silences, the book reads more like a score than a script.

This set of directions was written by Stanislavsky to accompany the Act I conversation between Treplev and Sorin.

1) Leans over, picks a flower and tells his fortune with the petals.

2) Sits facing the audience and nervously pulls at the grass. Smokes. Treplev gets more and more worked up, his speech becomes broken and faster.

3) In annoyance he slaps his leg, gets up and leans toward Sorin trying to convince him. Even pounds his chest in excitement.

4) Having waved his hand he climbs over the board of the swing and nervously walks around the terrace. A pause of about 5 seconds. Having walked around, Treplev calms down, comes back to his earlier spot, looks at his watch, and sits down straddling the bench.

“The Seagull has just been played, it was a tremendous success. We’re crazy with happiness. We are giving you a big kiss.”

—Telegram from Stanislavski to Chekhov

Chekhov was the success and main hope of the Moscow Art Theatre. The paradox was that the playwright had not seen a single performance of his plays – his health did not allow him to go to Moscow. He was in Yalta for treatment of his tuberculosis. But in April of 1900, the MXAT toured Sevastopol and Yalta. All 12 performances were completely sold out.

"If Mohammed doesn’t go to the mountain, the mountain goes to Mohammed! We’re bringing the Moscow Art Theater to Yalta in April, to show you the plays and make you happy.”  

—Stanislavski to Chekhov

• Sources

  Main Sources:

  https://www.britannica.com/topic/Moscow-Art-Theatre

  https://artyalta1900.ru/en

  https://americanrepertorytheater.org/media/moscows-first-uncle-vanya/

  Other sources:

  https://max.mmlc.northwestern.edu/mdenner/Drama/plays/Seagull/2seagull.html

  https://hum54-15.omeka.fas.harvard.edu/exhibits/show/performance-arts/mat

  https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zxn4mp3/revision/2

In the Thick of It

I suppose there are many times when working on a project that one feels that they are deep into the process and look forward to coming out the other side to completion. It’s a bit of a “can’t see the forest from the trees” moment. In making a theatre production, there are three times when I feel that way as a director.

Current conceptual image for Act One of The Seagull in the Multi-use Community Cultural Center by Vince Salpietro, Scenic Designer

The first is during the design process, particularly scenic design, which is where I am right now. It’s complicated by the fact that I am directing three Anton Chekhov plays in succession, each one set on a country estate. The houses are not the same, and certainly the tone (and time of year) of each play is different, yet there are both indoor and outdoor settings in each play. We are performing in a small venue with limited technical resources, so how do we immerse the audience in the world of the characters and forward the dramatic action? Doing it without repeating the designs? These are the essential questions we are creatively solving now. I’d say that we are 85% of the way there for The Seagull, our first production, 25% toward final designs for The Cherry Orchard, and just starting out on Three Sisters. It's an exhilarating challenge that will ultimately be helped enormously by costumes, lighting and sound. Oh, and fine acting!

How do we immerse the audience in the world of the characters and forward the dramatic action?

The second time a director feels adrift is right in the middle of the rehearsal period. The first two weeks are usually all about staging and vision. The director has the upper hand to the actors as to knowledge of the play and where a particular production is “going”. Then comes the ownership transition when the actors gain confidence in their roles and start leading the process by their character choices and commitment to their scene partners. Relationships grow, and the play starts to find its own voice. The director then becomes a careful guide, giving feedback that supports and enhances the paths of actors now emerging in front of them. After all, it’s not the director onstage in front of an expectant audience – it’ll be our standard bearer, the actor.

Relationships grow, and the play starts to find its own voice.

The final wave of “OMG what have I done!” inner screaming (never show it!)  comes when we finally have moved from the rehearsal studio to the stage where we add scenery, props, lighting, music, sound and costumes. Each of these elements has been created independently, though coordinated, and now we put them all together. What results is usually a car crash…until it isn’t. One definition of Art is “making order out of chaos”, and this is where the director mimics an orchestra conductor by detailing all of the hundreds of nuanced timings so that their vision comes together. Not to say that the director does it alone! All the designers and the show’s stage manager (who calls the cues) are refining their artistic input as we move page by page through the play. It’s also a time for the actors to regain their footing in new surroundings with new clothes, etc. We generally lose the story for a few days for all this to coalesce. Okay, here’s an admission - my spouse can recount the many nights when I came back from a dress rehearsal saying that the production would never succeed, it was an unmitigated disaster. She would calmly remind me that I frequently said the same thing before terrific productions opened…It’s a fascinating and painstaking process.

What results is usually a car crash…until it isn’t. One definition of Art is “making order out of chaos.”

And it’s why I chose this life. I wouldn’t trade it for anything. And it’s why audiences attend: to witness craft and artistry in storytelling. Make sure you have your tickets!

Classically yours,

---

Dramaturgical Dip: Chekhov’s Era

by Claudio Nolan

---

Dramaturgical Dip: Chekhov's Era

Russia in the 19th and early 20th century

The three plays in our season, The Seagull, The Cherry Orchard and Three Sisters all take place outside of the major urban centers of Russia. Anton Chekhov was an astute observer of daily life, and he considered much of his work as humorous (Russian humor is notoriously dark). At the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries, Russia was going through significant upheaval due to shifting ideologies. You can read more about some of the most prevalent societal changes of Chekhov’s era below.

Class, Estates, and Property

In 19th century Russia, the concept of "estate" (soslovie) referred to legally defined social classes, rather than just land ownership. These estates were crucial for determining social status, rights, and obligations within the Russian Empire. The term "soslovie" was used to describe the social structure, encompassing legal and social standing. The system was partially hereditary and partially dependent on occupation; individuals could sometimes move between estates through career advancement, education, or social mobility.

The four main estates were Nobility, Clergy, Peasantry, and Urban Dwellers, with special consideration for "inorodtsy" (non-Russians), each with specific legal and social standing. The nobility enjoyed significant privileges, including land ownership (often with serfs), exemption from certain taxes and military service, and access to specific educational institutions. Noble estates varied in size and grandeur, from lavish palaces in cities and country estates to smaller, more modest holdings. Noble estates often included manor houses, outbuildings (stables, kitchens, etc.), parks, and sometimes churches. These estates were often centers of cultural and social life.

The Clergy comprised the Orthodox Church clergy and their families, with varying degrees of social standing and influence. They were granted certain privileges and exemptions based on their religious role. 

Peasants constituted the majority of the population and were divided into state peasants (personally free but with restrictions) and serfs (bound to the land and their owners). Serfdom, abolished in 1861, was a defining feature of peasant life, tying them to the land and the landowners.

Urban Dwellers (Meschane), included merchants, artisans, and other urban residents who were not part of the nobility or clergy. They were further divided into guilds, artisans, and other occupational groups.

Serfdom

In Tsarist Russia, serfs were unfree peasants legally bound to the land and obligated to work for a landowner. While not considered chattel slaves in the same way as in the Americas, their lives were often characterized by harsh conditions and limited freedom, resembling slavery in many practical aspects. Historically serfs could be sold only together with the land to which they were "attached". However, this stopped being a requirement by the 19th century, and serfs were practically indistinguishable from slaves.

Serfdom most commonly existed in the central and southern areas of the Tsardom of Russia. The emperor and the highest state officials feared that the peasants' emancipation would be accompanied by popular unrest, given the reluctance of the landlords to lose their serf property, but took some actions to alleviate the situation of the peasantry.

Serfdom was abolished by Tsar Alexander II's emancipation reform of 1861. Scholars have proposed multiple overlapping reasons to account for the abolition, including fear of a large-scale revolt by the serfs, the government's financial needs, changing cultural sensibilities, and the military's need for soldiers.

The Troubles

While the term "Time of Troubles" specifically refers to a much earlier period of Russian history (late 16th and early 17th centuries) marked by dynastic crisis, civil war, and foreign intervention, the late 19th century in Russia was undoubtedly a period characterized by widespread discontent, social unrest, and mounting pressure for political reform. This environment of instability laid the groundwork for the Revolution of 1905 (a year after the premiere of The Cherry Orchard).

Russia's agricultural system was inefficient and lacked investment and technological advancement, leading to widespread poverty and even famine among the peasant population. Heavy redemption payments following the emancipation of serfs in 1861 further burdened peasants, who struggled with land, hunger and inadequate land allotments. Russia also experienced a significant population boom in the late 19th century, exacerbating pressure on land and resources in both rural and urban areas.

Industrialization, though late compared to Western Europe, led to the growth of a concentrated urban working class. This new proletariat faced harsh working conditions, long hours, low wages, and overcrowded & unsanitary housing - fostering a breeding ground for discontent and strikes.

The Tsarist regime's insistence on rigid autocracy largely excluded the population from participating in government. This created tension, especially among the educated elements of society (the intelligentsia) who desired greater political freedom and social progress. Growing discontent gave rise to various revolutionary movements like the Narodniks (Populists), Marxists, and anarchists, who advocated for radical change and challenged the existing social and political order.

The Dog Days of August

Anton loved dogs.

Two Important Introductions!

1
The first one is the most important: announcing the inaugural acting company for our three Chekov plays.

Each actor brings intelligence, specificity and emotion to their creative process. They have committed to our special pre-rehearsal gatherings over the next three months to take a deep dive into both the plays and the cultural context in which they were written. We have multiple scholars speaking virtually to the artistic ensemble about the art, music and politics of late 19th century Russia. By the time we “get on our feet” for staging rehearsals – starting November 30 for The Seagull – we hope to be able to inhabit Chekhov’s distinct characters with confidence and joy. 

While you’ll have to wait to see photos of these 31 actors until we complete our portrait process in October, here are our Chekhov standard bearers in first name alphabetical order:

Aaron Duclos – TRIGORIN, The Seagull
Brad Craddock – SHAMRAEV, The Seagull
Claudia Coonan – VARYA, The Cherry Orchard
Connor McGuire – KULYGIN, Three Sisters
D. Scott Adams – LOPAKHIN, The Cherry Orchard
Darby Williams – MASHA, Three Sisters
David Shakes – SORIN, The Seagull
Erin-Kate Howard – ARKADINA, The Seagull
Feliza Bascara-Zohar – CHARLOTTA, The Cherry Orchard
Fred Pienkoski – YASHA, The Cherry Orchard and FEDOTIK, Three Sisters
Ged Owen – ANDREI, Three Sisters
Hilary Appleman – ANFISA, Three Sisters
Ian Yates – TREPLEV, The Seagull and TROFIMOV, The Cherry Orchard
Jerry Bradley – GAEV, The Cherry Orchard and CHEBUTYKIN, Three Sisters
John Gaerhing – FERAPONT, Three Sisters
Jonathan Lowery – YEPIKHODOV, The Cherry Orchard
Katie Keating – NATASHA, Three Sisters
Katie Mae Chalone – ANYA, The Cherry Orchard
Kerry Young – RANEVSKAYA, The Cherry Orchard
Michael Whistler – PISCHIK, The Cherry Orchard
Miranda Rose Blood – DUNYASHA, The Cherry Orchard
Natalia Hulse – NINA, The Seagull and IRINA, Three Sisters
Natalie Koenig – MASHA, The Seagull
Paul Moukperian – SOLYONY, Three Sisters
Reuben Tapp – VERSHININ, Three Sisters
Rick Staropoli – DORN, The Seagull 
Sam Kinsman - STATIONMASTER/BEGGER, The Cherry Orchard
Sarah Izzo – OLGA, Three Sisters
Tanner Effinger – MEDEVENKO, The Seagull and TUZENBACH, Three Sisters 
Tomas Hernandez – FIRS, The Cherry Orchard
Tracey Atkins Ulterino – POLINA, The Seagull

How’s that for a vast representation of theatrical humanity!

2
You already know that we will be performing at the Multi-use Community Cultural Center at 142 Atlantic Avenue in the Neighborhood of the Arts, but where will we be rehearsing these epic plays?

Tada! A fortunate turn of events has led us to a beautiful 2,000 square foot loft on South Clinton Avenue. The owner has graciously worked with us to craft an affordable lease starting August 20th for all our rehearsal needs. We will even be able to rent it out to other theatre and dance companies for their rehearsals and auditions. Because of its location we have aptly named it:

Pretty cool!

A reminder – we are in the exclusive August window for donors to purchase season subscription before the general public in September.

Enjoy the rest of your summer!

Classically Yours,

Top Ten Reason to Donate

Here are some rays of midsummer sunshine as we keep our focus on creating the late 19th Century Russian countryside. 

We are also keeping our focus on putting our tickets on sale for the first time, starting August 1st with a pre-sale window exclusively open to our donors!

1
You’ll help build the foundation of The Classics Company as a Founding Donor.

☀️As Artistic Director/CEO I take no compensation, so join me in making this happen for Rochester. Soon you will learn about the acting company for the inaugural 2026 Season. Our actors will begin their early immersion into the world of Anton Chekhov later this month.☀️

2
You’ll witness an incredible company of actors to perform all three plays.

☀️Each actor has been carefully chosen for their specific role. You’ll be enthralled.☀️

3
You’ll experience the talents of professional designers in scenery, costumes, lights, and sound who will transform the Multi-use Community Cultural Center venue into a visual and aural immersion.

☀️While our theatre venue at 142 Atlantic Avenue may be small in size, it will not be limited in imagination and creativity. In fact, it will be packed with our fully-realized productions.☀️

4
As a special artistic collaborator, you’ll hear original compositions from Gregg Coffin for all three Chekhov productions!

☀️The plays of Anton Chekhov are rich with character, passion and human foibles. Much like a film, his stories unlock history and landscape - swept along by rivers of emotion: the perfect template for musical underscoring.☀️

5
You’ll be easily welcomed into the Chekhovian world through fresh translations by Kristin Johnsen-Neshati, who will be an active participant in our artistic process.

☀️Did you know that Chekhov wrote his plays in Russian…? Seriously, when performed in English we are hearing a translator’s and/or an adaptor’s view of the original text. Read “Dramaturgical Dip” below for my search for the right version for us.☀️

6
Your donation will help keep our ticket prices extremely low, providing access to the classics for all: $30 top price and $15 for students – plus season subscribers will see all three plays for just $75.

☀️Shouldn’t going to the theatre be less expensive? Even plays (let alone musicals) in NYC are ridiculously priced. The recent production of OTHELLO on Broadway had tickets in Row M for $921!!☀️

7
With only 75 seats on sale for each performance, as a donor you’ll be able to buy season subscriptions and single show tickets in an exclusive pre-sale window before the general public.

☀️Not only are our tickets inexpensive, as a donor of at least $100 you won’t get a sold-out sign because other fans have filled the limited seats.☀️

8
Where else will you be named a “God or Goddess of the Greek & Roman Pantheon” when you donate?

☀️Hey, we aren’t doing Sophocles, Aristophanes or Euripides (yet), but we have classics in our name so we will honor you classically.☀️

9
You’ll get to enhance your enjoyment of the classics through special activities such as video lectures and Mark Cuddy’s celebrated “Prologue” talks before each performance.

☀️We know you are smart and inquisitive – and probably goodlooking – so you’ll want to embrace all that The Classics Company offers.☀️

10
You’ll bring World Classics to the Rochester Stage.

☀️And you will make a difference.☀️

Classically Yours,

Dramaturgical Dip: Lost in Translations

by Mark Cuddy

Dramaturgical Dip: Lost in Translations

The plays of Anton Chekhov are translated and/or adapted into English more than any non-English playwright except perhaps Moliere and maybe Henrik Ibsen. The list of these translations and/or adaptations seems endless…I know because I have searched for months to find the right ones for The Classics Company.

Translation vs. Adaptation

Here is the difference between translation and adaptation. A translation is done by a Russian translator, steeped in both the language and the literature of Russia. To translate well is a distinct literary artform. An adaptation is written by a playwright who uses a translator’s “literal translation” to put Chekhov’s story into their own style. Most Chekhov plays that have been published in America and England are playwright-centered and not translator-centered. The many famous playwrights who have published versions of Chekhov include Tom Stoppard, Michael Frayn, David Mamet, David Hare, Brian Friel, Annie Baker, Heidi Schreck, Sarah Ruhl, Richard Nelson, Emily Mann, Stephen Karam, Madeline George…you get the picture. They go alongside others who are more translator than playwright such as Paul Schmidt, Robert W. Corrigan, Curt Columbus and Libby Appel. 

Here is what our translator, Kristin Johnsen-Neshati, says about the difference: 

“With a playwright’s adaptation of Chekhov, the real draw is that playwright’s take on a classic—not the classic itself. The adapter’s trademark voice and dramaturgical sense become paramount. If the playwright cuts, rearranges, or elaborates on scenes, this is acceptable because the new work is “adapted from,” “inspired by,” or simply “after” Chekhov.

For an audience wanting to hear a Chekhov play, however, the important thing is immediate access to Chekhov’s voice and vision. They need to leave with the feeling of having encountered the work of the playwright himself. To this audience, the artistry of the translator is unimportant—and often undistinguishable from the author’s—as long as it doesn’t impede the artistry of the original. The Chekhov translator doesn’t cut, edit, rearrange or elaborate, but provides a seemingly hollow reed through which the music of the original may be heard.”

It's always seemed to me that when playwrights run dry of original stories, they turn to adapting Chekhov to sharpen their craft. I guess that’s a compliment to Anton, right? They don’t really believe that they are going to write an improved version, do they?

Which leads us to my asking Kristin if we could license her translations for our inaugural season. I found her in a book of Chekhov critical essays by Rickard Gilman. He had used Kristin’s translation of The Seagull for his essay and loved her approach. I reached out to her, she sent all her translations, and I agreed with Gilman that her treatments were clear and unadorned. She told the story in a straight-ahead fashion without a personal style. She allows the actors and director to inhabit the Chekhovian world and make it their own. Now we won’t get “lost” in a translation. 

Below are excerpts from relevant remarks Kristin made when sitting on a panel of translators. I think you’ll agree with her perspective. Enjoy!

“Since language is on the move, translations have a limited shelf life. A good translator acknowledges this and strives to find the most immediate and accessible way to bring the original to today’s audiences. It’s the question of how best to do this that fuels continual debate. The translator should be attuned to today’s zeitgeist as expressed in the target as well as source languages. They must consider the tones and rhythms of contemporary speech and be able to find variations, such as verbal tics, regionalisms, and verbal patterns not identical—but equivalent—to those of the source text. Learning a new language makes you hear your mother tongue with the ears of a stranger. Only when I had to translate the Russian word chudnaya—an adjective that, in this context, means both miraculous and beautiful—did I realize how many English words I had taken for granted that combine exectly these meaning: wonderful and marvelous are just two examples. A translator must be able to think at times as a psychologist, an anthropologist, or sociologist to discover what a character is hiding or revealing by using one word and not another, why a character uses passive and not active voice, or speaks in short, germanic bursts instead of latinate abstractions. […]

Through the exercise of translation itself—the making of a thousand tiny decisions—each translator discovers an emerging “voice” for a new and distinct contribution to the field. I set out to create fresh and playable American translations that would make the rhythms and habits of 19th-century provincial Russia accessible to our audiences. I wanted my translations to mirror Chekhov’s economy, wit, and music.  I strove to make the imagery resonate and the language sing. But I didn’t know all that until I was nearly finished translating four of Chekhov’s plays.”

---

Kristin Johnsen-Neshati is Senior Associate Dean of Faculty Affairs & International Programs for George Mason University’s College of Visual and Performing Arts. She is also Professor of Theater for Mason’s School of Theater, where she has taught translation and adaptation, dramatic criticism, theater history, dramatic literature, and dramaturgy since 1993. 

Kristin founded and co-directs 1,001 Plays, an international 10-minute play exchange for students, with Nicholas Kfoury Horner. She produces and co-moderates Kritikos, a reading group that examines American society, the arts, and anti-Black racism with curator and head moderator, Jessica Kallista from CVPA’s School of Art. 

As a professional dramaturg, she served on the staff of Theater of the First Amendment for 18 years, where she focused on new play development for professional and student playwrights. She has translated four of Chekhov’s plays, which have been produced at George Mason University, SUNY Stony Brook, University of Maryland, University of Wisconsin-LaCrosse, and Washington College. 

Grants and awards include Virginia Humanities, George Mason’s Anti-Racist and Inclusive Teaching Grant, LMDA’s 2022 Innovation Grant, George Mason’s Fenwick Fellowship, Fairfax County’s Strauss Fellowship, KC/ACTF Criticism Fellowship and a Fulbright research grant for work in Egypt. Research interests include international theater collaboration, and new play development and theater practice in Iran, Egypt and Sudan. Education: Swarthmore College (BA, Russian and Theater); Yale School of Drama (MFA, DFA, Dramaturgy & Dramatic Criticism). 

Kristin is delighted to be working with Artistic Director Mark Cuddy and his colleagues for the inaugural season of The Classics Company.

"God I Hope I Get It!"

“God, I hope I get it
I hope I get it
How many people does he need?
…
I really need this job
Please God, I need this job
I’ve got to get this job!
…
Who am I anyway?
Am I my resume?
That is a picture of a person I don't know

What does he want from me?
What should I try to be?
So many faces all around, and here we go
I need this job
Oh God, I need this show!”

—I Hope I Get It from A CHORUS LINE

---

Actors need to act.

The brilliant musical that debuted in 1975 still captures the excitement and anxiety of actors auditioning. Yikes, what other industry outside of the performing arts puts their job applicants through this kind of naked vulnerability for a short-term gig! And yet…

…actors need to act. And directors need to see who is best for each role. Finding the right actor can make or break a production and make a director’s work succeed or fail. That’s why we are so painstaking about the process. 

Since we just completed several weeks of auditions for our inaugural season – and I can’t wait to unveil our inaugural casts of talented actors over the next month - let’s pull the curtain back a little bit and talk some theatre terms.

I used “Character Breakdowns” to guide the audition process.

These are short descriptions of the roles in a show, and also any particulars that a director might be looking for in actors. For the over 40 roles in the three Chekhov plays, I used character breakdowns such as these:

In The Seagull:

• Madame Arkadina – 40s, The center of the universe, a famous actress, and a mother - in that order. Holding tightly to her ego, which masks her terror at ageing. In a relationship with the younger writer, Trigorin.

• Sorin – 50s/60s, Arkadina’s older brother. Retired Govt worker, single, prone to cliche, big heart, frustrated with self but socially conscious, in failing health. Owner of the estate. 

In Three Sisters:

• Natasha — 30s. Andrei’s fiancée, and then his wife, mother to Bobik and Sophia. From a lower social class than the Prozorov family, Natasha is initially intimidated by the three sisters and subject to their ridicule. However, after marrying Andrei, Natasha gains and enjoys complete control over the house and the sisters. She is having an affair with Andrei’s boss, Protopopov, who runs the District Council.

• Masha — Middle Sister, 20s — Unhappily married to Kulygin, the schoolteacher, whom she originally revered. Masha is witty, short-tempered, and critical of the world. She has a passionate affair with the Battery Commander, Colonel Vershinin.

You get the picture. I am not strict about the age ranges posted, some actors present younger or older than their real age, but it gives actors some sense of how the characters fit together in relationships. 

Directors set up certain amounts of time for each actor’s audition.

Often for the first audition, it might be a five-minute “audition slot” to hear a memorized monologue and say hello. Because I wanted to make sure I had enough time for conversation in my first auditions for The Classics Company, I set-up half hour group slots for up to five actors. A little different approach.

For “callbacks”—cut-downs for second, and sometimes third, auditions—these are longer and require actors to prepare scenes from the play (let’s keep to plays and not musicals for a moment; musicals have separate singing and dance auditions). I decided to have actors at callbacks come in for 1–2 hours to act with other actors who are auditioning for characters in the same scenes.

These are actually called “sides.” The word comes from the time before Gutenberg when scripts were handwritten. To save time and paper, actors only got their parts and not the whole script: their “side” of the dialogue. The term is now used for any excerpt of a play or movie script used in auditions.

“Casting Directors, Offers, Agents, Contracts”

In the professional theatre world that Geva lives in, we had a consistent Casting Director to manage actors submitted by their agents in New York City. They would set-up all the auditions and we would go down to NYC for 3–5 days of casting. The Theatre would then make a salary offer to the actor’s agent, and then an Actors Equity Association standard agreement would be signed between theatre and actor.

Here in Rochester almost every actor is non-union and has a regular job during the day unless they are retired. Small theatres such as The Classics Company will have to rehearse outside their work schedule, and so we only offer stipends for expenses.

“God I hope I get it!”

So there you have a snapshot of how actors audition and theatres cast them. It’s time consuming making sure the right actors are in the right roles so everybody succeeds. I have promised those who auditioned for me that I would let them know around June 15th what I can offer them….

Classically Yours,

Dramaturgical Dip: Three Sisters

by Mark Cuddy

Dramaturgical Dip: Three Sisters

2026 Season

Cover art by Adolf Marks, St Petersburg 1901

Three Sisters is one of Anton Chekhov’s most celebrated plays, first performed in 1901. A common complaint from contemporary audiences accustomed to plot driven plays, movies, and TV shows is that nothing ever happens in Chekhov. This is because Chekhov creates theatrical poetry. A play like Three Sisters has its own geometry that uncovers its chain-of-events, its ideological orientation, its characters but does so beneath the surface by presenting us with the cycles of the seasons, and the continuous movement from day through night that defines our daily lives, not their exceptional moments.

The story takes place over three and a half years in a family home and follows the lives of four siblings after the death of their father, a Colonel. The youngest sister, Irina, is hopeful and idealistic, while Masha, the middle sister, struggles in an unhappy marriage. Olga, the eldest, has accepted a life of responsibility and duty, and their brother Andrei’s poor choices lead to financial ruin for the family.

At its heart, the play explores the siblings’ longing to escape their stifling small-town existence and return to the vibrant city they left years earlier. Packed with emotional intensity and dramatic events, including love affairs, a devastating fire, and a fatal duel, Three Sisters remains a profound exploration of family, unfulfilled dreams, and the passage of time. As their society rapidly changes around them Chekhov’s characters try to find the truth of the human heart. Its impact on modern theatre and enduring relevance make it one of the most significant works in theatrical history. 

And so, the artistic process begins.

On April 28–30, we held First Auditions for dozens of actors at the Multi-use Community Cultural Center. They each had prepared a memorized monologue of their choosing that displayed honest and transparent realism—keys to acting Chekhov. While I knew many of the actors from seeing them on local stages, there were quite a few nice surprises. Our mission drew people who are as excited about creating classical theatre as I am. We now move to Callbacks on May 12–14, when I have assigned roles and scenes for them to perform, matching up actors in each scene. (Actors can be cast in 1, 2, or 3 of the plays.) Over 40 actors will audition for over 45 roles across 3 plays in those 3 days. Quite a matrix of talent!

Plus, we have begun a forward-looking collaboration with Nazareth University’s Acting and Musical Theatre Programs. On April 27th and May 2nd, I auditioned students on campus for our 2026 Season. While their own productions come first, these programs have more talented students than they can cast so the faculty has embraced this opportunity. You’ll see some Naz faces throughout the 2026 Season, and we will hopefully continue to build upon this partnership.

One of the most frequently asked questions I get is “Why did you choose Chekhov for your first season?”

I have to tell you that I did not deliberate at all among the great playwrights I could have chosen. It was a quick decision. Not because I had deep familiarity with his plays: though I have seen many of them, I had only produced one back in Sacramento and I hadn’t directed any. Perhaps that’s why he was a natural choice—I felt the need to be immersed in his work. Primarily, I love his characters. Each one is indelible and alive with specificity and intention despite the chaos around them. I do know that actors love playing Chekhovian personae as they offer limitless layers to explore. His plays aren’t driven by plot as much as by the complexities of human behavior, with all the passion and folly we act out in our daily lives. There are no heroes or villains in Chekhov plays, only flawed humans that make up the multi-generational families we see gathered in country houses. 

I also had a rare summer in 1971 when, as a precocious sixteen-year-old dedicated to a future career in the theatre, I became an underage apprentice at the Falmouth Playhouse on Cape Cod. I lived on the property in a sort of barracks with the other older apprentices. We worked morning, noon, and night, six days a week, across all of the technical positions of a professional company. This was traditional summer stock, a new show every week, and a time when the stars still went out on tour. I mean, we had Sandy Dennis in And Miss Reardon Drinks A Little, Eleanor Parker in Forty Carats, Van Johnson in There’s A Girl In My Soup…you know, standard light summer fare.

However, we also had Faye Dunaway in Shaw’s Candida and the married couple, Rip Torn and Geraldine Page, performing three Chekhov one-acts…! In summer stock! Elmore Rual “Rip” Torn Jr. directed himself and Ms. Page in The Bear, The Proposal, and The Wedding. What I remember most from that week is that Mr. Torn kept rehearsing the plays after opening night. I was running the lighting control board that week, so I could see them rehearse from my vantage point, off stage left. That stuck with me. Here they were, doing summer stock on Cape Cod, and they cared about their craft enough to take their artistry seriously.

So I guess I’ve been a fan of digging into the works of Anton Chekhov for almost fifty-four years.

Last month, I wrote that I’d have more information about our annual fund and season subscriptions in May.

We will be opening up season subscription sales to our “Pantheon” donors for pre-sale on August 1st. On September 1st, we will open up sales to the general public. Why is this timeline important? With our limited performance schedule, there will be only 10 performances with tickets on sale in advance. (We’ll have an 11th as a $10 pay-at-the-door night.) The venue can hold about 75 people, so we will sell only 70 tickets per performance and keep 5 seats for emergencies. Because we don’t want all the seats to be subscribed and have some people miss out, we will put a cap of 50 subscription seats per performance and no more than 350 subscribers in total. It’ll be a select audience! Don’t worry, I’ll remind you of all this during the summer.

Classically Yours,

Here’s a little preview of another play in our inaugural season. The hits just keep on coming!

Dramaturgical Dip: The Cherry Orchard

Dramaturgical Dip: The Cherry Orchard

The Cherry Orchard — 2026 Season

Chekhov writes in great sweeps of fly-on-the-wall action which unfold in real time with large gaps of time between them. His four acts of The Cherry Orchard cover four key moments, from May until October, in the downfall of the Ranevskaya family estate.

The play opens at 2 am one May morning, when Madame Ranevskaya returns from Paris as the whole estate is up for auction in August if they do not raise money to pay the interest on their mortgage. Ranevskaya left five years earlier following the deaths of her husband and young son. She has travelled abroad to France, where she has been involved with a ne’er-do-well who has drained her financially. She returns with her daughter, Anya, to her estate that is managed by her foolish older brother, Gaev, and adopted daughter, Varya. A local businessman and family friend, Lopakhin—the son of a serf and a prospective suitor to Varya—is there to meet them with a plan to save them financially: sell the land off piecemeal to developers who will build holiday cottages for the rising middle-class. This plan would involve demolishing the house and chopping down their beloved Cherry Orchard, so large it has its own entry in the Russian encyclopedia. This plan is scoffed at by Ranevskaya and Gaev, and thus sets in motion months of uncertainty for Lopakhin and the family.

About Late 19th Century Russia

Anton Chekhov was born in 1860. The four mature plays on which Anton Chekhov’s fame as a playwright rests are: The Seagull (1896), Uncle Vanya (1897), Three Sisters (1901), and The Cherry Orchard (1903). Chekhov died in 1904. These final two decades of Chekhov’s life and art, during which he wrote his principal works, were ones of extreme governmental oppression in Russia. 

In 1861, Czar Alexander II freed the serfs, an act comparable to our own Emancipation Proclamation in 1865, ushering in a brief period of freedom of expression, even as the Russian Empire continued its expansion into the Caucasus, Turkistan, and East Asia. In 1866, there was an attempt on Czar Alexander II’s life, and he became increasingly conservative, with the state becoming more oppressive. This led in the 1870s to a movement of young intellectuals who went out into the countryside to “infiltrate among the people”, share their lives, educate them, and attempt to activate discontent along revolutionary lines. Alexander II’s assassination in 1881 spawned a period of reaction under Alexander III and Nicholas II, the last Russian Czar, during which they both tried to root out terrorism in their midst.

Meanwhile, the Emancipation of the Serfs meant the land-owning class went into rapid decline as new industrialists rose to power, and both peasants and former serfs flocked to the cities for work in the factories. Dangerous working conditions and appalling living conditions fomented labor unrest that a government, still operating as if over a semi-feudal economy, was ill-equipped to handle, and in which the Russian aristocracy tried to maintain its position in a world where it was increasingly irrelevant. This is the background of Chekhov’s major works: a world of changing values, of great social and spiritual stress.