Shakespeare and Chekhov in Production and Reception: Theatrical Events and their Audiences (review)

Reviews383 social critique of The Crimein the Whistler.Room,the anticipation ofTennessee Williams in The Saint's grotesque characterizations, and the Beckettian absurdism in Him's dialogue and settings. She concludes with a brieftribute to Djuna Barnes, author of three genre-defying Provincetown plays which alternately fascinated and mystified critics and audiences. Implicit in Murphy's study, although she stops short ofmaking this claim, is the general undervaluing ofthe contribution byAmerican (here meaning U.S.) dramatists in pioneeringaesthetic forms forwhich European playwrights arebetter known. As a few other Provincetown scholars have fleetingly suggested and as this latest study most persuasively reveals, the roots of post-modernism in theater and drama maybe fruitfullysought for within the Provincetown movement. Cheryl Black University ofMissouri-Columbia John Tulloch. Shakespeare and Chekhov in Production and Reception: TheatricalEventsand theirAudiences. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2005. Pp. xv + 310. $39.95. Given the degree of influence that Shakespeare had upon the most famous Russian playwright, it is promising to see these two authors as the subjects of a monograph on theatrical production and reception.However,this is not a book on the playwrights or their works, but instead on theater audience research, using Shakespeare and Chekhov as test cases in discussions about the material conditions of production and reception. Tulloch builds upon the work of Susan Bennett (Performing Nostalgia) and Willmar Sauter (The TheatricalEvent) in order to map the theatrical event in terms ofaudience research. The book's aim is to apply these theories to specific test cases, employing audience surveys and interviews at localized sites of viewing. In the lengthyintroductory section,Tulloch explains his central terms, including "theatrical event," "third-generation studies," "risk modernity," and "audiencing"; such terminology is abundant throughout this work, but sometimes the theoretical background is more helpful than others. Tulloch takes the readers through Sauter's four segments ofthe theatrical event process (playing culture, cultural contexts, contextual theatricality, theatrical playing), as well as his own four theoretical traditions under "audiencing" (processual semiotics ofproduction, reading formation, active audiences, spectatorship). While specific points made about each of these subcategories are often quite helpful, the 384Comparative Drama overall structure ofthe book includes so many ofthese groupings that the central argument becomes lost. One of the more interesting terms used in this work is "risk-modernity" (drawn from Ulrich Beck's concept of a "risk society"). This theory accounts for the ways in which we are "continuously perceptive of risks at the level of intimacy and personal relationships, sexuality, gender, ethnicity, employment, health, crime, work, and finances" (27). Tulloch points out that risk modernity allows for"the more optimistic agency ofnew subpolitical interest groups" and "the agency of everyday lives" (29), which seems to fit in well with his interest in localized theatrical productions, where people make the choice to pay a certain price for such leisure activities. However, in an attempt to differentiate risk modernityfrom postmodernity, sometimes Tulloch mischaracterizes the latter, arguing that postmodernism is always negative and that apostmodernist would take a certain view ofthe"Shakespearean real" (59). The idea ofrisk modernity might be better employed when recognized as a subset ofpostmodernity rather than as an alternative to it. Part 2 of the book is on production/audience studies, drawing on central traditions in media and cultural studies. The productions examined here are two versions of The Cherry Orchard: the television version by the BBC and a stage production at the Belvoir Street theater in Sydney. In his chapter on the BBC production, Tulloch traces audience preconceptions about Chekhov, especially among students, noting that "Chekhov was read quite strongly by students internationally as a writer of melancholic inaction, pessimistic vision, and truth to life. Interestingly, in addition to this rather gloomy, inactive view of Chekhov's social world, his art was seen as providing a message" (114-15). Thus Tulloch is able to discuss the potential conflicts between what audiences alreadybelieve about a certain canonical playwright and what directors attempt to convey with their specific concepts. The section on the Belvoir Street Cherry Orchard takes a much different approach: interviewing four audience members and talking to them at length about their reactions to the performance they saw onstage. As Tulloch aptly states,"This...