Reviewing+the+Film

You can find links to a number of reviews of //Vanya on 42nd Street// at [|Movie Review Query Engine]. How well do any of these reviews match your own perceptions of the film? What are both you and the reviewer seeing in this production? Where do you and the reviewer differ? What accounts for this difference? Did any review that you read cause you to reconsider one or more of your own judgments?1204911952

After having read several of the reviews, I have decided that my view of the film aligns most closely to that of James Berardinelli. Berardinelli states, "it does an excellent job conveying the issues, emotions, and complex characters which make //Vanya// so potent." Though we have not quite finished the film, this conclusion does not require much watching to come to. Upon reflection on other plays made films I have seen (mostly Shakespeare), I've realized that directors take advantage of the limitless possibility of the world as a stage. But not this one. Obviously Louis Malle has captured an important aspect of Chekhov's plays by not filming the play out in the world somewhere, or simply filming a performance on stage. The juxtaposition of the quasi-real life characters and the characters of the play really highlights the emotions and inner-workings of each character, especially because in most cases the two characters overlap in this sense.

The review gave me a better angle on the nature of the performances in the play. Because we had not read the play, this film is the first exposure we have to it (but not to Chekhov, so many of us have pre-judgements of his style). But upon reading the review, I realized how perfect the performances were. The plot and scenery are minimal, so the characters are under scrutiny, and Berardinelli is right in saying, "There isn't a weak performance. In fact, there isn't a weak moment." Before reading the review, I had certainly misjudged the play, because I have a tendency to judge plays by first looking at their complexities, and I had not realized the complexity of //Uncle Vanya//. Now I know that it is complex, but just not in a way that I had considered in this particular play before. 1205000606

These reviews definately made me reconsider my previous judgments of the play. Before reading some of these reviews, I thought I didn't like the play. I still think it was very slow, but I now can see that that's exactly how it is supposed to be. Much of the material and issues that are dealt with would not have been the same without the solemn tone that was portrayed in the movie. I agree with Roger Ebert's review of //Vanya on 42nd Street//. I see how Smith's performance of Sonya was well done. While watching it I don't think I liked it just because of how depressing it was. However, that's a sign that she played her part well. While I sometimes couldn't take some of the other actors seriously, I always felt sympathy toward Sonya. In regard to Vanya, Ebert said, "He brings Vanya right down to the bottom line: He is not great, not brilliant, not smooth, not lucky with women, but by God he has feelings, too! " I was able to see this is Vanya fairly easily. With his horrible life, we are able to see how much he cares and that he has deep feelings and concern for his lifestyle. It makes us motivated to do something with our lives so we can avoid the attitudes of Vanya and Sonya. 1205185395

While many of these reviews were from more educated view-points, I agree with when they stated that the film was a modern masterpiece. A novice would have simply "botched" it, as one critic put it, and they're absolutely correct. The way the movie was created was simply a work of art because the director took something from a different time, a different culture, and plopped it in the middle of downtown New York. Instead of taking the movie to Russia to film in the freezing cold, it's set in a broken-down theater, where the little use of props highlights the raw acting talent portrayed by Willace Shawn, Julianne Moore, and the other actors and actresses. The director did a phenomenal job when coming to the modernization as well. Bringing what might have been stricter, harsher culture into a small group of downtown cast members brought out Chekhov's greater writing. Two thumbs up from me!1205198621

I have a very similar idea to James Berardinelli in his review where he says how much he enjoyed the opening with the actors coming to the theater and then the subtle change to the play. I too thought this was a great idea for the film because it showed that the play isn't happening in some alternate reality or fictional world, it can apply to and is a part of our reality too. It was kind of wierd to see these people both as a character in the play and as an actual person, because really we never get a chance to see both usually we only see them in character. It was a good chance to reflect on the line between reality and acting.1205357840

I would say that I overall agree with Roger Ebert's review of the film. The elements which he mentions are the very ones that stood out to me while watching the movie in class.

//Atable, some chairs, many shadows reaching out into the unseen depths of an abandoned theater, and a long night of truth-telling. These are the elements of "//[|//Vanya on 42nd Street//]//," a film which reduces Chekhov's "Uncle Vanya" to its bare elements: loneliness, wasted lives, romantic hope and despair. To add elaborate sets, costumes and locations to this material would only dilute it.// - I admit that at first I did not like the bland scenery and progression of events because they seemed too boring to me. However, as I continued to watch the movie, I came to appreciate the "blandness" because it contrasted the dynamic personalitites of the characters. I came to eventually disregard what room they were in altogether because it didn't really matter. They were on the estate and each character was dealing with some sort of personal issue or another.

//The subject of the play is, What use should we make of our lives? The deeper subject is the fear of the characters that they have wasted theirs.// -The depictions of the character's wasted lives in this film are profound and even haunting. The doctor was handsome yet he was alone; Yelena was beautiful but in a loveless marriage. Sonya wanted nothing more than the love of the doctor but her plainness prevented any romance from happening. And of course Vanya was a roller coaster of emotions. The idea of the wasted life came to the forefront at the very end of the play, which I admit I found to be beautiful:

I came to admire Sonya because of her dedication to her family and the estate; she was completely humble, kind, giving, and loyal. She may not have been the prettiest, but her strong sense of character is what made her beautiful to me. In the ending scene in which she "//At last she says what she thinks. The scene is wonderfully handled by// [|//Brooke Smith//]//, who gives expression to what Sonya hopes: That if there is nothing to be done in this life, at least we may find a perfect mercy beyond the grave. The film ends with not much conviction that this will happen - but at least the characters can, once again, dream."// Sonya knows that she has worked hard in her life but that her life will be empty and alone; she can only wait until after death for her reward of being selfless. She of all people deserves a break...relaxation...respect...love. I had only wished that Sonya (and the others remaining at the end) would have found it. 1205442738

Leeper mentioned in his review about how the outer story seems to serve no other purpose than to explain why the play was performed with little dress and sets. I hadn't thought about it really, but he is right. The outer story has virtually no purpose. The play ends and then the credits role. We then see the actors come out of character but there is not dialouge. The movie essentially ends when the play ends, it doesn't even end with the outer story as it has stared.

I also agree with Leeper's criticism of the technical things. Leeper said,

"Declan Quinn's camera work is more irritation than art. He frames scenes badly, at times slicing off part of an actor's face. Other times all the action will be on one side of the frame while the rest of the frame seems wasted. During some speeches the camera seems distractingly unsteady as if it is being hand-held. All of this may have been intentional, but if so the reason was not apparent."

I completely agree. There were times in the movie where it was just irritating because the camera was shaking or i felt like I wasn't seeing all the action. I was also getting iritated because I've seen the actor who played Vonya in other productions, and it was distracting. I felt like he wasn't cast well. These thought may be my own personal bias, but nevertheless, I think a different actor would have been better for Vonya.

Overall, I thought the movie was ok. Leeper ended up rating it +2 on a -4 to +4 scale. I'm not an educated critic by any means, but I wouldn't have rated it so high. The story was good, but because of the unnecessary outside story and technical/cast issues I had, I feel detracted greatly from the film. 1205450294