Gay McAuley, in her seminal work Space in Performance: Making Meaning in the Theatre (1999), argues that performances encompass three intertwined realities: the fictional reality (the narrative world of the story), the presentational reality (the theatrical means of staging, such as sets, lighting, and actor performances), and the social reality (the interactions between performers, audience, and broader societal contexts). These elements, she posits, are “constantly interacting, constantly competing for attention, [and] can be exploited in different ways for different purposes” (McAuley, 1999: 252). This framework highlights how theatre makers manipulate these layers to generate meaning, often blurring boundaries to provoke thought or emotional response.
This essay explores the implications of McAuley’s argument through a comparative analysis of two adaptations of Anton Chekhov’s Three Sisters (1901), a play centred on themes of longing, stagnation, and unfulfilled dreams in provincial Russia. The first is Inua Ellams’ Three Sisters (2019), a contemporary reimagining co-produced by Fuel and the National Theatre in London, which transposes the story to 1960s Nigeria amid the Biafran War. The second is Brace Up! (1991), an avant-garde production by The Wooster Group in New York, known for its deconstructive, multimedia approach. By examining their presentational choices, this analysis will compare how fictional, presentational, and social realities interact, ultimately arguing that these adaptations serve purposes such as cultural reclamation and postmodern critique, respectively. Through this lens, the essay demonstrates McAuley’s ideas in practice, revealing theatre’s potential to address historical and social issues.
Adaptation by Inua Ellams: Cultural Transposition and Realism
Inua Ellams’ 2019 adaptation of Three Sisters relocates Chekhov’s narrative from early 20th-century Russia to Nigeria during the Biafran Civil War (1967–1970), transforming the Prozorov sisters into Lolo, Nne Chima, and Udo, Igbo women grappling with loss, exile, and colonial legacies. This shift in fictional reality infuses the story with African cultural elements, such as pidgin English dialogue, traditional attire like wrappers and headscarves, and references to Igbo customs, which Ellams uses to parallel Chekhov’s themes of displacement with the Biafran struggle for independence. For instance, the sisters’ yearning for Moscow becomes a desire to return to Lagos, symbolising broader aspirations amid war’s devastation. Presentational choices, including Ayọ̀bámi Lọlá Àlàgbákè’s costumes and Katrina Lindsay’s set design featuring a colonial-style house with African motifs, blend realism with cultural specificity, making the staging feel immersive yet evocative of historical trauma. According to McAuley (1999: 252), such interactions compete for attention; here, the presentational reality heightens the fictional one by incorporating authentic elements like Afrobeat music and dance, which draw on social realities of Nigerian identity. This approach arguably serves to decolonise Chekhov’s text, foregrounding Black voices and histories often marginalised in Western theatre, thereby exploiting these realities to foster empathy and cultural awareness among diverse audiences.
A particularly striking moment occurs in the depiction of the “tribal lady,” a character Ellams introduces as a spiritual figure embodying ancestral wisdom, and during the transition to Act 2, which marks escalating conflict. In the production, directed by Nadia Fall, this figure appears in ritualistic sequences, adorned in elaborate tribal regalia and performing incantations in Igbo, disrupting the domestic realism with mystical elements. This presentational choice blurs fictional and social realities: the “tribal lady” represents Nigeria’s pre-colonial heritage, competing with the play’s war-torn narrative to highlight resilience amid oppression. McAuley (1999: 253) notes how such “exploitation” can serve ideological purposes; indeed, this interaction critiques colonial erasure by integrating social realities of African spirituality into the fiction, making the audience confront ongoing postcolonial tensions. The Act 2 transition, featuring projections of war footage and choral singing, further intensifies this, as performers break into communal lament, inviting audience participation that merges social reality with the stage. In my view, these elements purpose to humanise the Biafran narrative, transforming Chekhov’s melancholic introspection into a call for global recognition of African histories, thus using competing realities to bridge cultural divides.
Adaptation by The Wooster Group: Deconstruction and Multimedia Fragmentation
The Wooster Group’s Brace Up! (1991), directed by Elizabeth LeCompte, radically adapts Chekhov’s Three Sisters by deconstructing its narrative through postmodern techniques, such as fragmented storytelling, video projections, and overt theatricality. Unlike Ellams’ culturally immersive realism, this production employs a meta-theatrical style, with actors frequently breaking the fourth wall, using microphones for amplified speech, and incorporating television monitors displaying live feeds, pre-recorded videos, and Japanese film clips (inspired by Kenji Mizoguchi’s aesthetics). The fictional reality is disrupted; for example, the sisters’ monologues are interrupted by technical rehearsals or non-sequitur asides, presenting the story as a collage rather than a linear drama. This contrasts sharply with Ellams’ adaptation, which maintains a cohesive narrative arc grounded in historical specificity. Where Ellams uses presentational elements to enhance cultural depth—through costumes and music—Brace Up! scatters attention across screens and live action, creating a shorter, more chaotic runtime (approximately 90 minutes versus Ellams’ full-length play). McAuley (1999: 252) describes such competing interactions as exploitable for varied purposes; here, the presentational reality dominates, exposing the artifice of theatre and challenging audience expectations. Broadly, this serves a deconstructive purpose, critiquing traditional realism by highlighting performance’s constructed nature, and it reflects The Wooster Group’s avant-garde ethos of interrogating media-saturated modern life.
Delving deeper, the opening five minutes and Vershinin’s entrance, along with the transition to Act 2, exemplify intriguing interactions between realities. The production begins with Kate Valk, playing multiple roles including Olga, setting up her character through a video monitor where she applies makeup while narrating in a detached, announcer-like tone, blending fictional exposition with presentational self-awareness. This competes for attention, as social reality intrudes via Valk’s real-time performance glitches, such as microphone feedback, reminding viewers of the actors’ labour in a live setting. McAuley (1999: 254) argues that such layering can exploit tensions for ironic effect; arguably, it purposes to demystify celebrity and acting, aligning with postmodern critiques of authenticity. Vershinin’s entrance further heightens this: actor Ron Vawter enters via a rolling platform, his lines dubbed over video of a Japanese actor, creating a disjunction where fictional philosophy clashes with presentational multiculturalism. The Act 2 transition amplifies fragmentation, with TV screens showing unrelated clips amid chaotic sound design, pulling social realities of media overload into the mix. In my view, these moments serve to satirise existential ennui in Chekhov, using competing realities to comment on late 20th-century information excess, encouraging audiences to question narrative coherence in an era of digital distraction. Compared to Ellams’ cohesive integration, Brace Up!‘s approach feels more alienating yet intellectually stimulating, exploiting McAuley’s framework for experimental innovation.
Conclusion
This comparative analysis of Inua Ellams’ Three Sisters (2019) and The Wooster Group’s Brace Up! (1991) reveals distinct presentational choices that shape interactions between fictional, presentational, and social realities, as outlined by McAuley (1999). Ellams’ adaptation employs a realistic staging infused with African cultural elements, such as pidgin dialogue, traditional costumes, and ritualistic figures like the “tribal lady,” to transpose Chekhov’s narrative into a Biafran context. This creates a harmonious yet competitive interplay where presentational choices amplify the fictional reality’s themes of loss, while drawing on social realities of postcolonial identity to foster cultural empathy. Key moments, like the Act 2 transition with its choral elements, soften distinctions between stage and audience, serving purposes of decolonisation and historical reclamation—transforming Chekhov’s introspection into a vibrant assertion of African resilience.
In contrast, Brace Up! adopts a fragmented, multimedia approach, breaking the fourth wall through video screens, dubbed lines, and meta-theatrical interruptions, which starkly differs from Ellams’ immersive realism. Overarching patterns include a shorter structure and pervasive technology, where presentational reality often overshadows the fictional, as seen in the opening setup of Kate Valk’s character and Vershinin’s disjointed entrance. The Act 2 transition further exemplifies this by layering chaotic media elements, heightening tensions with social realities of modern information overload. These choices exploit McAuley’s (1999: 252) competing dynamics for deconstructive ends, critiquing theatrical conventions and reflecting postmodern fragmentation.
Ultimately, the underlying purposes diverge: Ellams heightens distinctions to bridge cultural gaps and humanise marginalised histories, promoting inclusivity in a globalised world. Brace Up!, however, softens them through irony to provoke intellectual unrest, challenging audiences to reconsider narrative in a media-driven society. Both adaptations demonstrate McAuley’s argument that these realities can be manipulated for diverse aims—cultural affirmation versus experimental critique—highlighting theatre’s adaptability. This comparison underscores limitations in McAuley’s framework, such as its applicability to non-Western contexts, yet affirms its value in analysing how performances address societal issues. In an era of cultural reckoning, such exploitations arguably enhance theatre’s relevance, encouraging further exploration of hybrid forms. While Ellams’ version may resonate more emotionally, Brace Up!‘s innovation pushes boundaries, suggesting that softening realities fosters disruption, whereas heightening them builds solidarity. These insights, drawn from sound theatrical analysis, illustrate the enduring power of adaptation in navigating complex human experiences.
(Word count: 1624, including references)
References
- Chekhov, A. (1901) Three Sisters. Project Gutenberg.
- Ellams, I. (2019) Three Sisters. Oberon Books.
- McAuley, G. (1999) Space in Performance: Making Meaning in the Theatre. University of Michigan Press.
- Savran, D. (2005) The Wooster Group, 1975-2005: Breaking the Rules. Theatre Journal, 57(3), pp. 405-424. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25069676.
