Vanya on 42nd Street (1994)

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Blistering performances.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

In New York, the cast of Anton Chekhov's "Uncle Vanya" rehearse the play in a dilapidated theater on the 42nd Street.The arrogant and selfish Professor Serybryakov (George Gaynes) is an elderly intellectual married with his gorgeous and younger second wife Yelena (Julianne Moore) that feels trapped in a prison with her marriage. They live in a farm that supports their lifestyle with the Professor Serybryakov's brother-in-law from the first marriage Vanya (Wallace Shawn), who manages the family business with Professor's daughter from his first marriage, Sonya (Brooke Smith), a plain single young woman and Vanya's mother. The local Dr. Astrov (Larry Pine) visits the family every day since he is in love with Yelena. She talks with him about his feelings for Sonya, but Astrov misunderstands and believes she is also in love with him. One day, Sonya confides to Yelena that she has an unrequited love for Dr. Astrov. When Professor Serybryakov discloses his intention of selling the real estate, there is a crisis in the family."Vanya on 42nd Street" is a filmed rehearsal of Anton Chekhov's play "Uncle Vanya" by Louis Malle. The talkative story about frustrated lives, where every character wish to have a different existence, is surprisingly engaging since there are no costumes or scenarios, but excellent direction and performances. The beginning is a little boring, I agree, but give a chance to this movie and you will certainly have a great (favorable) surprise. My vote is seven,Title (Brazil): "Tio Vanya em Nova York" ("Uncle Vanya in New York")

I might not have ever seen this terrific film if it had not been for walking into the wrong theater. I was supposed to see screening of "A Night on Earth" during a local film festival, but I ended up in the middle of a screening of "Vanya on 42nd Street." I decided to stay and watch, not just because I had already seen "A Night on Earth" several times, but because I was curious when I saw Wallace Shawn & Andre Gregory on screen together in a film other then "My Dinner with Andre."Don't be fooled and think that this film is simply a sequel to "My Dinner with Andre," because it is far from it. What you have here is a screen version of the stage play "Uncle Vanya" by Anton Chekhov, but with a twist. The cast is doing a rehearsal of "Uncle Vanya" in a rundown theater in the middle of NYC, to an audience of the director (Andre Gregory) and a few others. The film also includes breaks in the play for stage direction (acting as an intermission for the cast) as well as initial dialogue before and after the rehearsal. This also includes an amazing opening scene in which we see all the actors walking down 42nd Street in NYC heading toward the theater (literally appearing out of the crowdedness of NYC).In addition to just seeing a fantastic version of "Uncle Vanya," you get some of the best acting performances in some time. Julianne Moore ("Boogie Nights") gets top billing being the best known cast member, but the film features some of the best performances by Wallace Shawn ("My Dinner with Andre"), Brooke Smith ("Series 7: The Contenders"), Larry Pine ("Dead Man Walking"), George Gaynes ("Police Academy" films), and stage actress Phoebe Brand. Even though I only mentioned a few, the entire cast is fantastic.If you are in your local video store looking for something a bit unique, I highly recommend that you check out "Vanya on 42nd Street" for night of theater without leaving your house.10/10

I'm baffled by all the praise this film has received.I'm guessing the director's choice to forego sets and costumes was intended to enable the actors and audience to focus in on and explore the inner world of the characters. But that's just wrong-headed. Human beings aren't fully alive unless they are interacting with (or passionately rejecting) the world around them. What would Neil Simon's characters be without New York, New York?Without the sets and costumes, this production of Uncle Vanya has an airless quality to it that eventually leads to a suffocating case of boredom. There is no sense of time or place (at least not in the first half hour I watched before giving up on it), so the behaviour of the characters seems to be severely stifled (and not merely by whatever social mores the characters are supposedly constrained by).Contrast this with the wonderful My Dinner With Andre, which had a very specific time and place, and which the director regularly reminded us of with interruptions by waiters. Imagine what that production would have been like if Gregory and Shawn had performed the entire thing on stools against a black backdrop, with no interruptions. Yikes!

Okay, okay. Now that I've got that out of my system, I can actually review the movie.Vanya on 42nd Street is pretty much a perfect film, just like its predecessor My Dinner With Andre. Both films have the same three cooperative creators, Andre Gregory, Wallace Shawn, and Louis Malle. Both these films have revolutionary structure. My Dinner With Andre is a film about two people who sit down to dinner and an extended conversation. Nothing else. For nearly two hours, two people talk, interrupted occasionally by a waiter delivering food. It is one of my favorite films, and only two films rival its depths that I can think of offhand, 2001 and Citizen Kane. All three of those films are so layered and have so many levels of interpretation that their value is priceless. Vanya on 42nd Street is a film about the first complete rehearsal of an English translation of the Anton Chekov play _Uncle Vanya_. The camera shows us actors acting on an undecorated stage with their street clothes on. And it pulls us in just as well as if we were sitting in the front row opening night (perhaps even more; I will explain why further down the page). I was entirely involved in the play throughout the whole film, and at one point Vanya (Wallace Shawn) grabs a cup which he wants to put water in. Emblazened on it: "I <heart> NY." It yanked me out of feudal Russia in a heartbeat. It wasn't there on accident of course. The bright red lettering faces straight on towards the camera, and is in the very center of the picture. This cup is pure braggartry, screaming: "THERE! You were entirely involved in something that was in no way real. Look just how well we are fooling you!" Of course, it didn't take another second before I was completely absorbed with the play. About fifteen to twenty minutes later, at the end of act three, tears were streaming down my neck.Okay, now, my reason for my claim that I experienced this play better in this film than I could ever experience it in the front row of a professional production of it. My reason stems from my fundamental dislike of theater. When one is acting in a play, one must shout (or rather, as a theater teacher might correct me, Project!) for the audience to be able to hear you. People do not shout their deeply emotionaly words. They grumble them or murmur them or whisper them or moan them. Dialogue released in a groan or a grumble does not project all that well. Therefore, all dialogue in a theatrical setting has always seemed, well, phony. Also, the complex facial expressions are entirely lost on every person sitting in the aisles at a play. All except for the most pronounced and overwrought. The same goes for gestures. Gestures are not always large in normal human communication, but on stage they simply must be for them to be communicated. The actors in this film are so, so, so, so so so so good, especially in their facial expressions. You could never get a proper feel for them sitting beneath them in a playhouse. The medium of film allows subtlety, as little as that quality is used in most films. That is why I feel film is superior to the play. Well then, if I believe that plays are awful, and conversely, that films are great, then why don't I believe that _Uncle Vanya_ would have been easily adapted into film. Well, because it was written for the stage, I believe (though I'm not 100% sure why, I'll honestly say). To actually see these actors moving around inside a house, or, even worse (since it's not in the actual play), on a farm would have seemed unrealistic. Normally, plays just feel stagey when they're put to film. There have been few exceptions that I can think of. I can tell almost instantly, when a play is translated into film. The only really great film to be made from a play is Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, easily one of the best films ever made. It never lacks the feel of a film. You can tell it was once a play, but it never feels like it has to be a play like Uncle Vanya would if it were adapted straight from play to film. I attribute most of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?'s success as a film to the perfect acting and the superior cinematography by Haskell Wexler.The play to film thing even bothers me when it is Shakespeare. I have seen very few Shakespeare films adapted straight to film that have worked for me. Zafferelli's Romeo and Juliette was the best. But the two Shakespeare works on film which have really intrigued me are direct descendents of Vanya on 42nd: Looking for Richard (I cannot believe Al Pacino did not see Vanya) and Shakespeare in Love (okay, maybe this isn't directly inspired by Vanya). Both of those films place the play on an inner level of the film's overall plot, and thus they try to teach us the inner workings of the plays themselves and acting as an art on the whole. Anyway, since I am tired and no longer in control of my thoughts, per se, I will just say 10/10, goodnight everybody!