By Lucy Komisar
“Vanya” is a gay play imagining the characters of Chekhov’s “Uncle Vanya.” The credit is “After Anton Chekhov,” with co-creators Simon Stephens, Sam Yates (also director) and Rosanna Vize (also designer). So, it uses the name, but it’s not Chekhov’s play. The solo performer is Andrew Scott, who says he is gay, and that is relevant.
In Scott’s performance, the men are somewhat interesting and the women are pseudo females that no real women would ever recognize. An actor’s job is to make a character believable. You do not believe Scott’s women, especially Sonia, a gay man’s parody.
(Quick summary: in Chekhov’s play, Sonia is the daughter of Alexander and his late wife Anna, through whom she inherited the estate she manages with her uncle Vanya. Alexander visiting from town with second wife Helena has survived on profits they send him but now wants to sell the property for cash. (But it’s Sonia’s.) Doctor Michael visits daily to see Helena. Sonia loves Michael, not requited.)
Real women have voices. But Sonia sounds like her vocal cords were cut. She has just a simpering whispering gay imagining of how a woman talks. I am so tired of gay men inventing fake women. For example, “Cage Aux Folles” about a gay guy is great. “Oh, Mary” with a gay guy playing the wife of Lincoln is misogynist and horrible.
This play takes Chekhov’s characters and throws them together in a script that in more than the half of the looong two hours is dreadfully boring. I recognized some of the play’s events, but not the people. That aside from the horrific this is how women talk.
Scott as an actor is admirable in the male roles. And kudos for memorizing two hours of lines in a one-person play.
But start with direction problems. To point out the characters aside from voices, Scott has unhappy Michael the doctor bounce a tennis ball. Really? No reference leads to that. Another male has dark glasses, because? Sonia flits around with a red dish rag. Any male-female stereotypes suggested? Alexander the filmmaker of course has a scarf, a gay touch.
The Vanya character is called Ivan. So you have to know that Vanya is the diminutive. Frankly, with the TV audience laughing at non-funny lines (this is not a comic play), I suspect they did not.
“Uncle Vanya” was published in 1897. In this production the set design by Vize includes modern kitchen appliances. But current time contradicts the story of the play, especially the role of women.
I was sorry the rifle that is mustered at the end was not shown earlier. The famous Chekhov gun principle is if a gun appears in an early act, it has to be used by the end. I’d have liked the reverse (let’s see the rifle earlier) as a hat tip to the master!
What an insult to Chekhov and to women is this play!
(There should be a conversation about critics dealing with gays, since many routinely avoid saying when a play with a gay sensibility abuses women or is otherwise offensive. Are straight critics afraid to speak out? Criticisms and plaudits of this review will be posted here. Except hate messages, already received and deleted.)
“Vanya.” Created by Simon Stephens, Sam Yates (director) and Rosanna Vize (designer). Lucille Lortel Theater, 121 Christopher Street, NYC. Two hours (announced as 90 min but ran 2 hrs). Opened March 17, 2025, closes May 11, 2025.
Vanya is NOT a ‘gay play; as you put it…
As for the rest of this piece, it sounds to me like you haven’t even paid the slightest bit of attention to the play because if you had, you’d actually write a decent piece, and praise it instead of criticising pretty much everything about it.
Quite why anyone would want to donate to this site when there are unfair and poorly written pieces like this on it, is beyond me…
LK: Read the review again. You have to separate your theater criticism from your ideology. This is a gay play because it presents a woman as a gay male parody. No woman talks like Sonia. Or do you think they do? And do you like this putdown of women? Can you support equal rights for gays and at the same time understand when a gay actor in his role is abusive of women? Are gay actors beyond criticism?
Thank God the production does not follow your suggestion to show the rifle early on. Sadly, you seem to do the opposite and shoot yourself in the foot right from the get-go with the title of this piece. No matter how many times you change the wording of your article or response to the posted comment, it still comes across as homophobic, hostile, and ill-informed.
I don’t think this play was ever considered a gay play. The directors just happened to find Andrew Scott. Yes, he happens to be gay. But I doubt you would be saying any of this if instead, his understudy (a woman) had done the one-person show instead. I don’t think you would complain about it becoming a lesbian play, and I don’t you think you would be frustrated with random objects (that were chosen entirely randomly) apparently showing misogyny.
LK: Good point. So maybe not the author but Andrew Scott (and the director) turned it into a gay play by his portrayal of Sonia. The script says Alexander wears a scarf. The other objects, including a dishrag for Sonia (they are never random), would have been chosen by the director.
I have to completeley disagree that the portrayal of women in this play is in some way misogynistic or even ‘fake’ or unrecognisable. I’ve seen this play more times than i could count on one hand so perhaps I am biased but I found both Helena and Sonia to be incredibly accurate to the types of women they are representing. Especially Sonia, who i found to be the most fleshed out and quite frankly relatable character in this adaptation, I am especially a fan of the tea towel. I do agree that the tennis ball is an odd choice for Michael but the dishrag is so incredibly clever for Sonia, making nods towards her homemaker personailty and her traditional qualities as she looks after most of the other characters and the estate (as she did in the original Chekhov play). I do also want to add that I did see this in the UK and that since its UK run some changes have been made (such as the scarf which wasn’t part of the show when i saw it). But all in all ill have to disagree with you on this one. This wasn’t a ‘gay’ play and was absolutely in no way misogynistic with the women in this play being some of the most complex and fascinating characters.
Hi,
I came across this article while exploring Vanya and trying to analyze it objectively—just for fun, as I’m not an expert. Just to preface my thoughts.
I think the play is brilliantly performed; let me make that clear upfront. However, I also noticed that the female roles seem somewhat stereotypical, serving primarily as catalysts for the fate of the male characters. That said, the male roles themselves are also stereotypical and unflattering. Is there a single character in the play you’d present as a role model to your child? Probably not. This seems to be part of the artistic process—distilling complex personalities into theatrical figures that emphasize the less flattering aspects of humanity. That’s my take on it.
It would have been nice to find an article here that engages with these issues just as objectively. The play has clear weaknesses that can and should be discussed.
LK I did point out what was wrong with male and female characters. The Sonia was not believable.
However, the question of what the actor does in his private life is certainly not one of them. This entire critique is deeply disappointing.
LK It is essential because it shows where he is coming from. This is a gay play.
The author appears to have barely engaged with the play itself; otherwise, she wouldn’t imply that the production is solely Andrew Scott’s creation.
LK What do you mean the play itself? Chekhov’s play was not presented. Did you see it? The review was not about Chekhov. Of course it was about Scott.
Good journalism works differently because:
Generalization and stereotyping: The critique claims, “In Scott’s portrayal, men are somewhat interesting, and women are pseudo-women no real woman would recognize.” This unfairly generalizes and reduces female characters to unrealistic stereotypes.
LK No, it is true, Sonia was a stereotype. Why the dishrag?
Homophobic undertones: Statements like “I’m tired of gay men inventing fake women” are blatantly prejudiced and imply that gay men are incapable of authentically portraying female characters—a biased and offensive perspective.
LK This play shows some are not. It did not say all. There is Harvey Fierstein’s play “Bella” which is brilliant.
Overemphasis on sexual orientation: The critique focuses excessively on Andrew Scott’s sexual orientation and its supposed impact on his portrayal of Sonia, distracting from an objective evaluation of his performance.
LK His gayness is essential in that performance.
Subjective and dismissive language: Phrases like “terribly boring,” “parody of a gay man,” and “insult to Chekhov and women” undermine the credibility of the critique through overly emotional and biased language.
LK No, descriptive and honest.
Misinterpretation of artistic freedom: The critique disregards the creative liberties inherent in adaptations by failing to acknowledge that Vanya is explicitly billed as “after Anton Chekhov,” indicating it’s not meant to be a literal reproduction of Uncle Vanya.
LK Didn’t say it was Chekhov. It was Scott. That is the point.
Ad hominem attacks: Instead of focusing on artistic elements, the critique attacks Scott personally, questioning his motives and those of critics who don’t condemn “abuse of women” in queer productions.
LK Don’t question motives, just criticize what he created. Is that not allowed?
This review is harmful because it is so biased and homophobic that it prevents genuine critical engagement with the play!
LK Your comment is useless because you reject any critique of a gay play. Was there ever a gay play you didn’t like?
Best regards,
Kenny (from Germany)
P.S.: Anyone interested in an objective discussion about the play can email me at Ko**********@*eb.de
Here is my reply to the comments on my initial post. First of all, thank you for taking the time to engage in dialogue.
I would like to preface this by saying that I am not writing in my native language, so I may misunderstand certain things or inadvertently express myself in a way that seems unclear or misleading. If that happens, I apologize in advance.
It’s important to me that you know I fully respect your right to hold any opinion, especially when it comes to art, where liking or disliking something is entirely subjective and up to the viewer.
If you simply disliked Andrew Scott’s performance, that would be an opinion I don’t share but would completely respect. What I find problematic is tying your dislike of his performance to his sexuality.
You don’t like his portrayal of Sonia, whereas I find it quite compelling. To me, it seems like Mr. Scott’s interpretation of a delicate, vulnerable woman, which contrasts beautifully with her role in the story. In my opinion, Sonia is the strongest character in the play. You perceive her as a parody and claim that this stems from the actor’s homosexuality—a notion which, pardon me for saying so, seems absurd. Couldn’t his gender be a more likely factor? Or perhaps it’s something cultural—he is Irish, after all. Growing up with many sisters might also have influenced his perspective.
There are countless reasons why his performance might be the way it is. Yet you seem convinced that the root cause lies in his sexual orientation, despite the multitude of other possibilities. This, I believe, is problematic and homophobic.
LK I just saw Purpose, a play about black characters by a black playwright. If I call it a black play, does that mean I don’t like black people? No, I am just describing its reality. By the way, it is a terrific play and I gave it a rave review. And if I say a play is influenced by a writer’s sexual preferences, that is also just describing it. Or do you believe that gay and straight writers see the world the same way?
Does he also portray heterosexual male characters “the way a gay man sees them”? For example, focusing on women or objectifying them? Do heterosexual men or women play their roles differently because they are straight? I don’t understand what basis you use to make this assertion.
Furthermore—and this might be due to my limited English skills—I don’t quite understand what you mean by “gay play.” I’ve tried searching online but couldn’t find anything relevant to help me grasp this term. If you could briefly explain what makes a play a “gay play,” it would help me better understand your evaluation.
Lastly, while we’re discussing Sonia’s portrayal: I find it highly problematic that she struggles with her appearance and is described by other characters as ugly or plain. This strikes me as misogynistic, in my opinion. A simple twist could resolve this issue—for instance, in the conversation between Sonia and Helena (Act 2, if I’m not mistaken), Helena could reflect inwardly and reveal that Sonia is actually beautiful. This would still focus on appearances but clarify that Sonia is merely insecure rather than “objectively” unattractive (if such a thing even exists).
A more complex but even better solution would be if Sonia were portrayed as beautiful and confident—perhaps even intimidating—and Michael were repelled by her self-assurance, instead turning to the less confident Helena instead.
LK Every playwright brings their own reality to what they write, to how they draw their characters. To ignore that is self-censorship. And what might have been is not what was.
That’s all for now! I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Best regards!