MovieChat Forums > Three Sisters (1970) Discussion > This really is a great performance of th...

This really is a great performance of the play


I read it first, then watched the Mustapha Matura version live (which was great in it's own right, but not true to the Chekhov play, just a little more than losely based on it, as some of the major themes and what drives the play and characters change ), and I then rented this on DVD, the quality was a bit off from the copy, but the dramatization was just superb, and Alan Bates was just fantastic, definitely recommend this, if you enjoy or are studying the play.

reply

I strongly disagree.
The acting is hammy and outdated.
Throughout the whole film, and especially the parts pertaining to Acts I and III, the acting is terribly descriptive. There is hardly any nuance in the delivery of the text.
I would urge you to see Neokonchennaya Pyesa Dlya Mekhanicheskogo Pianino, by Nikita Mikhalkov, to have a true approach of life in a generals estate in the early years of the XX century.

reply

I agree, Steve. I did not enjoy this version of 'Three Sisters' at all. I too read the play beforehand and thoroughly enjoyed it, but greatly disliked this films bland interpretation. However, my problem doesn't neccessarily lie with the acting -- even though the only watchable performance comes from Joan Plowright as Masha -- but rather, in the direction. This film is the definition of banality, and is probably the reason for the actors over-the-top performances. This film is essentially a 'filmed play'...Sure, it may work on stage, but nobody has taken into account the effects of the film medium; there is a vast difference between theatre and screen acting/directing. And, this film (or rather, 'play without the impact of live theatre') just fails to satisfy. Anyhoo, let me end by saying: what's the point of making a movie version if it's essentially the same as the stage version?

SALAD PRODUCTIONS
Tossed for the very first time!

reply