It is not possible to implement Chekhov's world without understanding today's Iranian society

The director of the play "Fleeting and Lasting Loves" said: "The fact is that I did not want to stage a completely Chekhovian performance." I did not intend to preserve all the features of the original text and recreate the same world in all its details.

Art service of Sefir Arjan of Iran (Sefir Arjan) - Ahmad Mohammad Tabrizi; The play "Everlasting Loves" directed by Vahid Montazeri has been staged in the Iranshahr Theater. The show, which was formed by looking at "The Seagull" by Anton Chekhov, and with changes in the relationships of the characters, story situations and the atmosphere of the work, has tried to bring the world of this classic play closer to today's Iranian society. In this work, instead of directly reconstructing Chekhov's world, Montazeri started from social concerns and human relations in Iranian society and then went to traces of the play "The Seagull". An approach that provides the possibility of rereading a classic work in a contemporary context.

This director, who completed his university education in the field of theater and has staged works before, spoke to Ambassador Arjan about the reasons for choosing Chekhov's play, how the initial idea of "transient and lasting love" was formed, and the localization of classic texts and the necessity of knowing the target society in the adaptation process.

The show "Fleeting and Lasting Loves" is based on Anton Chekhov's play "The Seagull". There are many changes in your performance compared to the original text. What made you decide to adapt this play? Given that you could write an independent text with the same mood, what was the reason for choosing Chekhov and "The Seagull"?

"The Seagull" was one of my favorite plays. I studied theater in the conservatory and after that I studied in the same field in the bachelor and master level. About 16 or 17 years ago, when I was studying at the conservatory, I got acquainted with the play "The Seagull" and we also dealt with this play in the classes and rehearsals of that period. Since then I had established a relationship with this play.

However, the formation of "Fleeting Lasting Loves" did not initially begin with the direct decision to adapt "The Seagull". In recent years, especially after 1401, one of my serious concerns was whether we should work or not work in such a situation and what decision we should make. This issue was not limited to professional activity and had also affected friendships, friendships and artistic collaborations.

During that period, many friendships and collaborations were broken. Some people believed that work should be done and another group believed that it should not be done. These differences made people talk less with each other. Everyone had their own position and judged the other why it worked or why it didn't work. As a result, the distance between people increased. I thought it was strange; Because usually in such situations, people are expected to be more with each other, to talk to each other and to be able to raise their differences.

This concern was in my mind until I wrote a draft last year. While writing, I realized that some of the situations and relationships formed in my plan have similarities with "The Seagull". These similarities existed before I decided to draw inspiration from Chekhov's play. After this, I went back to the play and read it. On rereading, I realized I could make some changes to my design and use some of the "seagull" elements.

In this way, I tried to pay homage to Chekhov's play and use some of its elements. So, at first the work wasn't going to be written directly looking at The Seagull, but when I saw the similarities, I decided to use the work more consciously. In fact, my own story was formed first, and then by rereading "The Seagull", I incorporated parts of it into the structure of the show.

One of the characteristics of Chekhov's works, especially "The Seagull" and "The Cherry Orchard", is dealing with human relationships and complex details of characters. The implementation of these details on stage also has its own difficulties. When adapting, weren't you worried that you wouldn't be able to implement the subtleties you wanted in the performance?

The fact is that I did not want to stage a completely Chekhovian performance. I did not intend to preserve all the features of the original text and recreate the same world in all its details. In my opinion, many theater audiences have not seen a different and significant performance of Chekhov's works in recent years. Among the performances I remember, "Cherry Orchard" directed by Mr. Majjuni was a lovely work for me. I also remember the performance of "Ivanov" directed by Mr. Kohestani, which was also somewhat dramaturgized. However, in my opinion, today's audience has neither the patience nor the opportunity to sit for two and a half or three hours and follow the performance in all the details of the classical text.

On the other hand, the kind of jokes, spaces and relationships that exist in Chekhov's texts, if performed without considering the conditions of today's audience, may simply not communicate. If the text is not dramaturized well and all its details are preserved in the same original form, it is possible that today's audience will not be able to relate to it. Because of this, one of the main difficulties was to be able to keep the details I needed to express the main message of the show, while leaving out or changing the parts that are not relevant to the performance atmosphere and conditions of today.

In my opinion, it is no longer possible to expect a classical performance, with the same methods of the past, to convey all the words of a text to today's audience. The work must have different layers; A layer that a group of audiences can communicate with and other layers that are accessible to more accurate and familiar audiences with the text and world of the work.

For someone who has read The Seagull and is familiar with its details, some of the show's subtleties and references may be more meaningful. On the other hand, the audience who comes to watch the work without background, should be able to connect with its story, characters and human relationships. I think the difficulty is precisely in creating a balance between these two levels of the audience.

In the works you mentioned, as well as in "Fleeting and Lasting Loves", it seems that Iranian society and its concerns have an important place in your eyes. Are you interested in presenting an image of the society in which you live in your works?

Yes, I like it; Because I live in the same society and my audience is the same Iranian society. It is natural for me to want to work on people I know, live with, and see their issues and concerns closely.

The atmosphere of your show is close to realism in terms of human relationships and the formation of crises, and we see people who are each involved in their own stories and issues, and from the heart of these relationships, crises such as lies and betrayal are formed... Is this closeness to social realism your conscious choice?

My main problem in the theater is to create a work that I myself would like to see. Usually when I direct, I watch the play every night. I also try to choose something to perform that I enjoy myself.

In the works that I make myself, I have this concern to produce a work that both you, as a book lover and familiar with art, will enjoy, and my mother, who may come to watch the show as a more general audience and read less books and watch more TV or movies.

It is important to me to be able to create work that can be enjoyed by different audiences. Sometimes in the theater there is an idea that the work should be in such a way that one group of audience can understand it and another group cannot communicate with it. Achieving a performance that, while having depth and intellectual layers, is also attractive to the general audience is a very difficult task and is considered a big claim.

Of course, one work may be successful in this direction, another work may turn out to be relatively successful, and another work may not be so successful. You have to experience this path and find a way to reach it. If we can create a work that both the professional audience and the general audience can enjoy, we have achieved something important.

I always have an example in mind, which of course is not related to our work space. I knew a director who staged his performances in factories and different places and wanted to achieve a kind of performance that could be loved by all sections of the society. In my opinion, if we can reach such a point, we can say that we have succeeded in our work.

Considering that many human crises and conflicts can be seen in "Fleeting and Lasting Loves", can it be said that these crises are influenced by the conditions of today's Iranian society? Did you have a mindset about lies, betrayal and the complexity of human relationships from the beginning, or did these issues develop during the writing process?

Certainly, the conditions of the society have influenced the formation of these issues. However, when I decided to mention its connection to The Seagull in the introduction, I researched the period in which Chekhov wrote the play. It was interesting to me that some of the conditions of that period, including the economic situation and some social issues, had similarities with our conditions today.

The play "The Seagull" was written in 1895, and while examining that period, I realized that some human and social issues are still comparable, despite the time gap and cultural differences. These similarities were interesting to me; Of course, it cannot be said that the conditions of the two courses are completely the same.

I believe that if a work is only dependent on a certain period and its temporary emotions, it may expire after the passage of time. For this reason, it was important to me that the story is not only a reflection of the emotions of a certain period and can talk about human relationships and issues that are not limited to a specific time.

Since in the introduction of the play I mentioned its connection with "The Seagull", it was necessary to research about this work and the historical circumstances of its writing. If I didn't mention Chekhov and his play, maybe it would be easier for me, but when I propose such a relationship, I must also have the necessary knowledge and research.

One of your most important changes compared to the original play is the redefinition of relationships and characters. For example, the rivalry between two brothers in your show has found a place that can be more tangible for the Iranian audience than some relationships in the original text. Also, the substitutions you have made in relation to theater and cinema. How did these changes take place?

In my opinion, the competition between two brothers can be attractive and believable for the Iranian audience. In the original text, some relationships and competitions have a different form, but I felt that if I change these relationships, it will be possible to bring them closer to the lived experience of the Iranian audience.

For example, the competition between mother and son in our society may not be as understandable as the same relationship in the world of Chekhov's play because our perception of the relationship between mother and child, especially in the Iranian cultural context, has differences with Russian cultural relationships. On the other hand, the pattern of competition between two brothers or between father and son is more familiar to the Iranian audience and can be easily understood.

For this reason, changing relationships and replacing some situations was important to me. I also tried to bring some elements of the show closer to today's times. The change in the ratio between theater and cinema is also in the same direction; Because I wanted the audience to be able to recognize the situations and conflicts of the show in their own contemporary world.

In this show, you have collaborated with actors such as Vahid Rahbani and Vahid Aghapour, who themselves have directing experience and are different from you in terms of artistic experience. How did this collaboration go? Didn't the difference in views create difficulty in the process of practice and performance?

Working with these friends was very enjoyable for me. Vahid Rahbani and Vahid Aghapour both have considerable experience and history. Mr. Aghapour was my university student from my senior years and I think we have an age difference of about 14 or 15 years. Despite these differences, both of them trusted me and were very good companions at work. I enjoyed this collaboration; Because they helped me in some areas and in the places where we disagreed with each other, we could talk about issues.

It was valuable to me that the actors, despite their experience and independent point of view, trusted my performance decisions and carried forward what I had in mind for the show. At the same time, there were differences of opinion and this helped the process. Overall, working with this group was a pleasant experience.

In this show, you have taken a text from another cultural world and brought it closer to Iranian society with some changes. What points should be observed in the process of dramaturgy and localization of a work?

In my opinion, first of all, we should know the people who live around us and the society we belong to. This recognition must be formed before adding story elements from other worlds. I think usually in the adaptation process, we reverse this order; That is, first we go to the world of foreign influence and then we try to transfer it to our own society. Personally, I have not received a favorable result from this method.

As I said, in "Fleeting and Lasting Loves" I first had an Iranian story and then I added traces of Chekhov's play to it. Currently, I am following the same approach with the play "Three Sisters". In my opinion, three sisters live in Rasht and want to go to Tehran. They imagine what might happen in their lives by going to Tehran and what kind of future awaits them.

This situation is familiar to me. Because I am originally from Qom, I have studied at the Theater Conservatory, I have studied at the University of Tehran, and I have entered a path for work and life in which the experience of migrating from one city to another and imagining a different future was a part of it. I know this issue and I feel I can talk about it.

In my opinion, we should first create this Iranian world and then introduce traces of the world of the original work into it. Finally, the desires and aspirations of people in different parts of the world are very similar to each other; People in different cultures may have similar desires and aspirations, but their lifestyles and social relationships are different.

If we want to transfer a work from one cultural world to another, we can't just replace its characters and situations with superficial equivalents. We must first know how the people of the destination society live, what is important to them and how human relations are formed in that society. Then we can use elements of the universe of the original work.

In other discussions about adaptation, it has been pointed out that in order to transfer a work from one world to another, one must know the cultural, social and historical relations of the author and the environment in which the work was created. Has studying in the field of theater and being familiar with the theoretical issues of this field helped you in such a process?