The+Format+of+the+Movie

I think that the format of the Uncle Vanya movie is awesome. I've never seen a movie like it before. It was hilarious when the audience was sitting at the other end of the table in the second setting. Admittedly, I was a bit confused as to when the start of the play was. I think that was intentional, though, as the camera jumped over to the audience watching partway into the dialogue between the doctor and the nanny. The way this was directed is really brilliant. Is anyone else liking the movie so far? Is the format easy or hard for you to understand?1204858329

I need a clarification on your question. If you're asking if the production and the camera work in the film is good, then I whole-heartedly agree. The unannounced intro and the shots of the audience during the play were great additions to an otherwise horrendous movie. Obviously, I did not enjoy the actual play. I don't blame the actors or the director for this: I mainly place that on the material. What worked so well in The Cherry Orchard--the lack of action, instead focusing on the dialogue and the character's reactions--does not translate to either the plot of Uncle Vanya or the movie format. The lack of any action--including dynamic dialogue--made the movie unwatchable. I enjoyed reading The Cherry Orchard, but Uncle Vanya, whether it is because I'm seeing it in movie form or the plot is just bad, is one of my least favorite plays this year. 1204863060

I agree with Nick; I liked the way that this film is formatted--right as you're getting into the play, it jumps back to the captivated audience members and reminds you that the play is simply a dress rehearsal being shown to a small group of people. It's a really interesting way to view a play; you get to see it from two different perspectives, and I really like the way that it was filmed. At first, it was confusing because I thought we'd just be watching a production of the play, like we used to watch different versions of Hamlet last year, but this was cool because it had a whole different plot line, with the play being shown to a group of people that you see and it's all part of the production... I like it a lot. 1205003068

I like the way that we "meet" the actors before the play. I thought it was interesting that we see Wallace Shawn eating outside the theater and then talking to the audience members before he goes on stage. I liked the format of the play because it took some concentration to follow. I had to pay pretty close attention at the beginning especially because it jumped in so fast. That is something I am not used to but I did enjoy it. I dont know if I like the play itself; I will make my decision at the end, but I do like the format.1205023488

The format is easy to follow and is brilliantly unconventional. The directors of most films try their best to make the movie as real as possible through special effects and elaborate scenery. This is all in an effort to try to take the viewers' mind off of the fact that, in the end, it is just a movie. In Uncle Vanya, the director does the opposite. Everyone knows that films are performed by actors who have coffee breaks and what not, so the director basically states, " why not just include the entirity of the filming process?" Well, you might say that this takes away from the effect of the film. In a sense, this unconvential no-cut directing does take away from the effect of the film, but the effect is so strong that whatever this form of directing takes away is virtually negligable. The director is making a statement that the dialouge is so powerful and the actors so talented that he can show the coffee breaks without seriously detracting from the film. And I agree with the director because the ironies, the extraordinary dialouge, and, for the most part, the great actors, make this film simply enjoyable to watch, even if we see the director and the audience in the background half the time. Personally, after the first few seconds of each scene, I feel as though I am actually in Russia because of the sensational dialouge, which includes many aspects of Russian culture, such as vodka, as well as the excellent actors. 1205047999

TMc, I strongly hope that you don't honestly think vodka is an important part of Russian culture. I enjoyed the format of the movie because it felt as if I was watching a play and a movie at the same time. Although, there was very little scenery, it still felt like a movie because the actors became the actual characters. Instead of feeling that I was watching a production of Uncle Vanya in class, I felt as if I was one of the people watching at the theater. I disagree that the lack of action made the movie "unwatchable" as dsU wrote. However, the play is a bit slow, but bearable. However, the point of this play, just like the Cherry Orchard, was not to include action and important events, but instead to focus on different aspects of life, human nature, and thought. 1205074704

I will also admit that I did not quite catch exactly when the movie shifted from "street mode" to "play mode," but I am still enjoying it. I like how this movie has a documentary type feel to it. Yes I understand that many of these camera angles are ones that a good director uses, but it also feels like someone from the audience decided to film this dress rehearsal and the goings on during intermission and before the play. In the beginning, I will agree it was a bit slow because I had to pay close attention in order to understand what was going on, but I am really enjoying this play. Listening to the words these characters say and how poetic each line sounds is incredible. 1205115971

I liked the format of the movie as well, it just took me a while to get used to it. The characters would be in dramatic conversation and then there would be sirens from the city streets outside, which made it hard for me to put the characters in a setting other than the city. I thought that it was easy to realize when the play switched modes. The director always commented to the audience members when a scene was over which made it easy to distinguish when the scene was changing. There was also a part of the movie when the play would be at intermission and that was easy to tell because the actors act differently as their play characters and their movie characters. In the end I liked the movie and it was neat to see one of Chekov's plays preformed.1205181412

I was kind of confused by this switching between play mode to real mode in the beginning. However, once I got used to it, he seemed not to really do it anymore. Overall, I didn't really enjoy the play, but that is probably because it's much slower than movies I'm used to watching. I feel like if we read this as a class we would have found a little more humor because we would have had the freedom to imagine these scenes on our own. Rather than watching the actors read and act all depressed, I would have found some of the "depressing" things they said funny. I would have thought, "Are they that depressed that they just said that!" So we all noticed that he switched between play mode and street mode, but what was the point? I like tmc's explanation that the dialogue itself was so powerful, that the director could do this without detracting from the play. But, this doesn't really seem like a good enough reason for someone to film a play like this. Wouldn't it be that much better if we became completely focused on the characters and it seemed like real life to us? 1205184316

I liked the format because it was unusual; I had never seen a play like this before. However, it did take me quite a bit to get used to. The first scene was the most seemless transition from "real life" to Uncle Vanya. The camera simply spanned from one conversation to another (between Dr. Astrov and I believe it was Mama). After that, there seemed to be almost a tour guide (?) in the audience who would introduce the next act and set the scen or tell us how much time had passed. I was really glad that Brother Tom had gone over the list of characters with us before we watched the play, because without that, it probably would have taken me half the movie to figure out who's who. It took me quite a while even with that list to help me! Anyways, Kec, to answer your question, Brother Tom explained to us before the movie started that the filmmaker had actually found a group of actors who did this-- they would simply get together every once in while and perform the play, sometimes for a big audience, sometimes for a small one, sometimes for none. The filmmaker found it intriguing and decided to go off that idea. I think I liked his interpretation better because it allowed us to see the "actors" as they were normally and then see them transform into their characters. 1205185245

The format certainly is creative--as kho pointed out, we were given background along the way by a "tour guide" (who, I'm pretty sure, was the director, by the way). I think that by presenting the play as just that, a play, with real people playing pretend characters, we were better able to get into their heads and think about the characters. After all, this just reminds us that the actors are thinking and working as the play goes on, and every flash to the audience or theater brings us back to the realization of just what the actors are doing. It made me question the actions: "What is it about the pretty wife that would encourage the actress to laugh at such strange, awkward times?" or "Why would Uncle Vanya turn away in that exact moment?" Ultimately, I think that the format made me think more deeply about the characters and their motivations because I knew that the actors were making concious choices during every moment. 1205197359

Overall, I really enjoyed this movie. It was different to see one of Chekhov's plays transformed into a movie with only several simple settings, but it was also frustrating at times because it left no room for the mind to fill in the gaps of the scenery, the projection from the characters, and even their attitudes. I thought that it was a unique beginning, starting them off in the middle of downtown New York, as well as the simple props that could have been replaced with more age-appropriate objects (the "I heart NY" mug was my favorite.) It all added up to a completely different, modernized movie. I thought that the director did a fantastic job from boring the audience out of their minds because of the way he got the characters to express what they were feeling. That's one of the things I think I miss most about plays. We cannot physically see what the characters look like when they're frustrated, sad, excited, or furious. Although the absence of that feature also allows us to picture it for ourselves. I also liked how the director added some simple editing features such as the overlapping audio that showed Yelena pondering and had her voice in the background, telling us what she was thinking about; something only produced in movies. 1205197949

 I liked the modern twist the format of the movie gave to the play. I felt like I could better to relate to some of the characters and their feelings because it didn't appear as though they were separated from me by many years and miles. The lack of scenery and props just made the acting stick out more. Their emotions seemed stronger because there was much less to focus on. I think that the actors did a great job especially considering the lack of a formal set and props. Although the movie takes place in modern times the play within the movie doesn't. I think that it would be very difficult to such a phenomenal job portraying the play in this format. I think that the idea of a play within a movie is very creative. I think it was a great idea. 1205355957

.

I think that this was an interesing way to do a film in that the lack of scenery forces the viewer to focus more on the dialogue, but I feel that something about this movie just didn't relate to me. What struck me as particularly odd was how it just sort of jumped into the play at the beginning without any announcement, and as a result it took me a good couple of minutes to even realize that the play had started. What I also found odd was the random jazz music thrown in at scene changes because it to me didn't make any sense within the context of the play, and if anything it detracted from the play because it did not suit the mood and was instead a between scene distraction.

I will say though that it helped to view a play from a point of view where you could really see the actors' faces and see the emotions they expressed because like someone else said, you too often cannot really see these things at regular plays unless you have a really close seat. Also, while I didn't like how the play was set up per se, I will say that the scenery generally fit the dire mood of the play with how dark, dreary, and dilapidated the theater was much in the same way as I pictured the estate that they all lived on. It was best in this sense to not have it look like a big fancy production because it is more realistic to have the "scenery" falling apart in this dark space because this play really does take place in a dark place. I don't know though. I'm just sort of indifferent towards this play because I like the idea of what they were trying to do with the film, but I feel like this wasn't the play to do it with.1205365199

I briefly discussed this on a different post but I agree that the format of the movie was very different. I have never seen anything before when the setting does not really matter, at least that's what it seemed like to me. I took it as the producers and directors intentionally made the play set in an auditorium with little scenery or props. I believe they did this so that the attention was upon the acting and the dialogue that made the play so powerful, and I think that it worked. However, we have discussed in class many times how everything in a novel is there intentionally, so do you think that they intentionally made the set seem run down? or purposely showed clips of the cast on break? I guess I mean that I know it was intentional, but was the particular setting of a theatre intentional? 1205366284

I just wanted to post again on the subject of this movie, because for me the format and the play finally began to complement each other on the second day, and they really worked well together on the third. The bland, emotionless dialogue that focused more on the characters whining and self-philosophizing gave way on the second day to dialogue about actual issues in the house. The characters began to actually converse with each other, not just talk at each other, if that makes sense. The camera work only complemented this: it often captured both of the actors faces in the shot, instead of focusing on the one talking actor, which was great cause I loved seeing the reactions that the actors gave to each dialogue. My only outstanding complaint was the actor that played Elena. She couldn't really decided whether she was laughing or crying, and sometimes I found it hard to tell the difference between her sobbing, nasally fits of laughter and her sobbing, nasally fits of crying. Besides that, however, I found that by the end of the movie, I rather enjoyed this play and the work the crew did with the format. 1205379594

I thought the movie displayed it in an appealing way too. Right, I realized that the play was going on after it had already begun as well. I think that this quick and sly change made the play more real. They didn't introduce themselves as their characters or anything, so you didn't think, "Oh, they are the actors." You get into it before you're like wait a minute...I found that comical, because I felt they pulled a fast one on me. In response to you, Ptr, I think they made the set run down on purpose to go along with the mood of the scenes. Nothing was elaborate, and that matched what was going on. If it was really nice and everything, the viewer would probably think that it wasn't so bad, and wouldn't see the drama the same way as they actually do. 1205445169

I agree that the setting was pretty perfect. If they wearing true costumes, I think that would have been a little better. However, I think the lack of transition from reality to the play was really sweet. I believe the director was sort of trying to say that these themes and events apply to our own lives today, not just the lives of these Russian people centuries ago. Thus, I felt a little more like I was in that auditorium watching the play and less like I was sitting in a classroom watching it. I thought the movie was entertaining and well produced. It blended literature with reality, and I really admire that successfull attempt. 1205446207

I was confused at first about the format of the movie. At one point, they were ending the scene and they scanned over to the audience watching the play. I was confused for a second until I remembered that the movie included a group of people actually watching the play. But I like how they did it. In a sense it felt like we were those people in the movie watching the play as well. In our classroom we were able to see the movie as a whole and then the play on its own. I thought the format was clever.1205467646