I saw THE SEAGULL last night at Tower Theater here in Sacramento, California. I'm glad I did. The agony of love, the agony of art . . . the pleasure and pain of human relationships and the joy and trauma of creativity--the tragic comedy of unrequited work & love. How could I not love it? I'm the sweet-spot of their target audience: a heartbroken artist.This smart, entertaining, soul-searching riff on Checkhov's play by screenwriter Stephen Karam and director Michael Mayer looks and sounds beautiful on film.I burst into a catharsis induced cry at the crucial moment, the thematic climax of the story, blissfully blindsided by the storytellers' beautiful insight into what it takes to be an artist. Once again, I experienced the power of art to lift me up and help me soar when my wings feel clipped or I feel shot down.My Silver Knight Rating of THE SEAGULL--White Knight (Form): 7.5Black Knight (Story): 8.0= Silver Knight (Form & Story): 7.757.75 CamerasThe Silver Knight Rating scores a movie's level of play in what I call the Chess Game of Art. (See my IMDb commentary on ARRIVAL.)

"The Seagull" (2018 release; 98 min.) is the latest big screen adaptation of the Anton Chekhov theater play. As the movie opens, we are at "The Imperial Theater, Moscow, 1904", where an aging stage actress is saying her goodbyes left and right. The action then shifts to the dacha (country estate), where the actress' ailing brother is anxiously awaiting her arrival. Meanwhile the actress' son Konstantin is preparing to stage his latest play. He is assisted by a lovely young lady, and the two seem happily in love... At this point we're less than 10 min. into the movie but to tell you more of the plot would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.Couple of comments: this is the latest film from director Michael Mayer, who is best known for his work on Broadway. Here he tackles what should be a natural for him: bringing a stage play onto the big screen. "The Seagull" has been made into a movie before (and a number of times at that), but I must admit that this is the first movie adaptation I have seen. All the elements are seemingly in place, none more so that a terrific ensemble cast led by Annette Bening, who seemingly only gets better as she ages, but also Saoirse Ronan, Elisabeth Moss, Brian Dennehy, and Billy Howle, just to name those. And it's certainly not the acting talent that is lacking. Bening and Ronan are simply terrific. (As an aside, Ronan and Howle are co-starring as a couple in not one but two movies currently playing at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati: besides the Seagull, they also star in "On Chesil Beach". What are the odds of that?) Yet despite all this, "The Seagull" is simply not a great, or even good, movie. We watch these character but have no emotional investment in them. When Konstantin has yet another outburst (almost like a five year old's tantrum), we just wonder--why? When romantic relationships may or may not develop, we wonder where the spark is for that. It' a darn shame, and frankly I was relieved when the movie's end titles started rolling, as I had had more than my fill of this. "The Seagull" was filmed exactly 3 years ago (and one can notice it when you compare Ronan in this and in "On Chesil Bech", filmed 1 1/2 yrs. after this). Why has this been sitting on the shelf for so long? One can only wonder... The movie opened this weekend at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati, and based purely on the strong ensemble cast, I decided to check it out. The Friday early evening screening where I saw this at was attended okay but not great (about 10 people). Frankly I haven't heard single buzz about this movie, and I can't see this playing long in the theater. If you have an interest in big screen play adaptations, or are a fan of anyong in the ensemble cast, I'd suggest you check this out, be it in the theater (while you still can), on VOD, or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray, and draw your own conclusion.

I have never seen the play performed, so I am not referencing any stage versions, though I have seen a ballet version. This version is gorgeously shot, both of the outdoors scenery, and the claustrophobic indoor scenes. Set in the early 1900s, this collection of bored, landed gentry and self-important artists deserve a revolution to sweep them away.Somewhat central is the mother Irina, who loves herself about all. The story belongs to her son Konstantin and his girlfriend Nina (Saoirse Ronan, who really chews up the scenery). They are in love, but Nina then falls in love with Irina's lover, and things fall apart. Meanwhile, there is a whole chain of characters with unrequited love, each focused on someone who bats them away, just as they bat away someone who is in love with them.The exposition of the story is good, except for one glaring point. There is a jarring and confusing insertion of the start of Act 4 at the beginning of the film. This seems to be a blatant attempt to give Annette Bening top billing, since the credits were "in order of appearance".

We get a nice double weekend of Saoirse Ronan this month with The Seagull and On Chesil Beach (for film lovers who scope out the lesser heard of films). On Chesil Beach is the film that I'm really anticipating but The Seagull was the first stop. Went in blind to this one without even seeing the trailer. The film is based on the Russian play of the same name, by Anton Chekov. Not sure how faithful the film is to its literary source but I was mixed on the presentation in the film.The film is about an aging actress and her lover who go to visit her brother in the summer. Her son is a struggling playwright who struggles to strive for his moms acceptance. He is in a relationship with a young neighborhood girl (played by Ronan). She falls in love with the lover of the aging actress, who himself falls for her. That might have been the worst explained synopsis I've ever written. Its much easier to understand while watching the film.The film posts great set design, cinematography, and costume design. The film looks of its locale and time period. I'm not familiar with any of Michael Mayer's work but I'm sure his background in theater direction helps with the aesthetics of the film. The film also boasts a rather terrific cast. Along with Ronan we get a very good Annette Bening and an unfortunately underutilized Elisabeth Moss. There is slight humor here and there which bring chuckles but overall its not so easy to care for the labored love of the characters or their relationship.I guess for me I wasn't a gigantic fan of the source material and found it hard to place the importance of the adaptation of this story. It's still very respectably made and well acted, it just isn't something that spoke to me or left a lasting impression. Moss was one of the better characters (along with her lover) and they don't get enough screen time. Its often fun but not always compelling, unfortunately.6/10