The+Prologue+of+the+Play

One of the things that I felt was quite strange about how they did this play was the fact that they started out by showing each actor as just an individual person within the greater society of New York. They were all doing normal things such as eating a sandwhich or talking to friends and this was important enough to give it the first 5 or so minutes of the play. Why do you think that the directors felt that this sort of introduction would be effective? and what does this type of introduction mean? The more I thought about it the more it seems that this is supposed to be a comparison. Out on the streets they are just regular people with regular worries who don't look all that depressed but once they get on the stage they play deeply depressed characters whose will to live has just run out. Now the thing that I got stuck on is that is this supposed to contrast the two with the outside world having meaning and being worth living or is it trying to point out similarities in saying that the outside world has certain similarities with the play? Of course this could be an overinterpretation but think about how there really was no hard break between the opening scene and the beginning of the play. The actor went on the bench to take a nap and then woke up in the beginning of the play right into his role. So is there supposed to be any correlation invoked between the play and the outside world or was this just a different way to start that play off. user:DGr-c

I saw the introduction as more of a different way to start off. We did get some background information about the characters, the director, and what it took to perform the play before it started. I think we even got a little background info about the play, which was nice. The only thing that I can think of that has any way of making a strong connection with the introduction and the play is the nap that Uncle Vanya took. I think this is a bit of a stretch but maybe that nap had some symbolic importance. The actors were milling about, living their normal lives, probably taking one another for granted, and not really thinking about the direction their lives are taking. Then all of a sudden, you wake up and realize your best years are already behind and you have nothing to show for it except regret. In the play Uncle Vanya had this happen to him and he was portrayed by the actor that took the nap. I think that was a bit of a stretch but maybe there was some symbolic meaning to the introduction. 1205458502

I do think that the director of the movie was trying to add his own meaning to the play by setting it up the way he did. I feel that it was more to point out the similarities between the modern world and the world of the play than to contrast them. They were regular people on the street, but at the same time we don't know what their lives are like. You can't tell the hardships that a person has been through just by passing them on the streets. I also think that the way the intro fades right into the play shows that there really aren't that many differences between the two. 1205459399

I'm having a hard time drawing parallels between the streets of New York and Uncle Vanya's world. Maybe I'm just too optimistic, but I think that the real world is far more free and happy than life on the estate. People are constantly busy and the city is a hub of activity, whereas Vanya's world was one of inaction, never moving or changing anything, even though he might be able to make a difference. To me, the introduction highlighted the actors' talent more than anything. By the end of the play, it was easy to forget that all of these sluggish depressing things were really happening in the exciting city, and I was impressed by the ability of the play and the actors to create a completely different world. 1205460004

I liked the beginning, or what I heard about it. The similarities between the modern world and the world of play was important, because it just was meant to show that the problems of the play are still present today. If the director was to point out the differences, it would be harder for us to relate the play to our modern lives, which i think is rather important. user:MFi-c

It could be that the introduction may serve as some sort of wakeup call. As was said above the actor that played Vanya had to fall asleep in order to become his character and to some respect Vanya was sleeping throughout his life before he woke up and realized what was happening but by then it was too late. He had lived in the dream world that the professor had spun up around him for so long that by the time he realized that it was all a fraud he couldn't do anything left in his life except to work at the estate and try to desprately find some sort of love in the professor's wife to try to justify his life. Maybe thats the main message of the beginning of the play. You can be living your life in the everyday world in something that dosnt really matter and when you wake up from it you may find yourself in a situation none to different from Vanya in which your life has become the epitamy of meaninglessness. user:DGr-c

I think that the intro did have some purpose. Not only was it a genius piece of camera work and directing, but it was a comparison between the common day and the play, a display of the actors prowess, and a symbolic summary. The into, to me, showed how life was bustling outside of the world of the play. People had purpose and moved from one place to another with energy and life. However, in all of that it is easy to lose sight of someone in the crowd. Just like it is easy for us to lose sight of ourselves and our purpose in the bustle of life. Also, if I remember correctly the intro included all the actors greeting the audience. It was almost the same sort of closeness and openness that the characters have in the play. They talk and act like normal, but what they are really doing there isn't stated. Anyways, I thought the intro was a fun way to open the play up. 1205461118

I think that the intro served the purpose to show that even though everyone in society appears to be normal person going about their normal lives, everyone has their own problems and things to work out. When we first watched the film, all the characters were interacting with each other like nothing was wrong, yet when they got to the old dilapidated theater, chaos began to reign as the Vanya bickered with Alexander, and both Vanya and the Professor were pursuing Yelena despite the fact that she was a married woman. So beneath this seemingly normal facade lay a family in great distress who could barely make ends meet, and were in danger of having their home sold off for a Finnish condo. I think the message is that more often than not people have two sides to them: one in the outside world and one in their own personal lives.1205461455

I took a different approach to the introduction. As I watched all of the characters walk separately in the heart of New York city, I could not help but think of Virginia Woolf's __Jacob's Room__, the novel that inspired me to think more about the perspectives of different people. Seeing the actors of the Uncle Vanya on 42th Street accentuated the differences of the characters, making me more fully realize that although the play was about a bunch of depressed, vodka-loving Russians, the play was also about how people from different perspectives, whether it be a retired scholar, two serfs, a doctor, or a young beauty chained by her old geyser, all felt the same sense of misery, the same sense of an existential vacuum. In addition, all of these characters, though they come from different perspectives, are incapable of changing their misery. The Doctor, Sophia, Vanya, and Yelena all engaged in some sort of romantic attempt, but alas, in the end it was all fruitless. Though Vanya and Sophia got to own their own land by themselves, they still feel a lack of purpose in life, illustrating by Sophia's comments that they would continue to live the same, picking crops, doing chores, day after day. Yelena remains trapped to Alexander in a relationship that never really involved true love, just Yelena's intrigue into the professor's intellect and charm. And Alexander is still sick at the end and has made no plans to do something to give himself a purpose in life. Living in Finland is not a real purpose for one's life once one gets there. In conclusion, I enjoyed how all characters started out individually and separately, as each had different perspectives in the play, but, as the play wore on, it was inevitable that all were made beasts by the vanity of their lives. They were all equally depressed. 1205466824

Okay, so pretty much the entire rest of the play is all in the same decrepit areas indoors, right? The beginning shows how they are like normal people we encounter in the streets. We pass them, and we don't know their stories, and we can't make judgments because for all we know, they may be as odd as the people we discover them to be. But they're individuals, and in their lives, which are like so many millions more of those just standing around them, they have so many possibilities. They can be any of them, do anything else, because they've got their whole lives ahead of them still, but we learn they waste it away, tucking in the room there wasting their time sitting idly around and complaining of boredom saying there's nothing to do. So it highlights the waste of their lives. 1205470250