User Reviews

The idea of filming a play gets turned upside down as we see the players before and after the (rehearsal) performance, essentially as themselves. One remarkable scene shows the cast during intermission chatting with each other and audience members while munching on goodies from a caterer. It gives the experience of watching a play in an old, run-down theater, including comments from the director.

The play itself is no less remarkable. Shawn is a gifted actor, one of the few who can bring his entire body into a role. The rehearsal atmosphere takes some getting used to - it's hard to tell when real life ends and the play starts. There are no costumes, little in the way of sets, but it all works because the performances are so compelling. And Chekhov's Uncle Vanya is surprisingly relevant 100 years after it was written.

Chekhov's Uncle Vanya stripped down to its bare essentials when a group of New York actors rehearse in a decaying theatre with no set dressings or props but just their talent, accompanied by David Mamet's modern adaptation of the play. Off course it may be stagy but you fall under the actors spell and that's what it's all about.

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")

Malle's adaptation handles Tchekhov's notoriously difficult shifts in mood and context excellently, investing every scene and almost every word with an edge of ambivalence and frustration, and the performances are all first-rate. Moore in particular, from her first appearance in the film (which is without dialogue) to the final scene constructs a really intelligent performance as Yeliena, I feel, and she seems to cover the whole gamut of Yeliena's character from the giggly and superficial to the introspective.

With all due respect to the American school this film could have descended easily into overwrought Tennessee Williams-esque Naturalism with lots of method-style spitting and uncomfortable truth. Instead the intellectual, spiritual dimensions of Tchekhov's play are always brought to the fore, in addition of course to Tchekhov's dark brand of humour, where the actors (particularly Julianne Moore) laugh through their tears and visa versa. Avoiding the common temptation of drawing out the play's anguished characters at a snail's pace, Malle also paces the film well, with an emphasis on lightness and subtlety of delivery - the result is both intellectually and emotionally satisfying.

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 sympathise with the Russian poster who took exception with Mamet's tampering with Chekhov but I still admire this film a great deal. As a non-Russian and non-Russian speaker I have loved Chekhov since the time I was able to distinguish great writing from mediocre and I have always felt that no matter how fine a given translation I was still losing the occasional untranslatable nuance to which Russian speakers have access. Vanya is also one of my favourite Chekhov plays and I just wallowed in this wonderful version. It's magical the way that once inside the rehearsal space with the actors schmoozing Wally Shawn stretches out on a bench almost imperceptibly and Larry Pine asks Phoebe Brand casually how long they've known each other and unless you really know Chekhov you'd think this was just actor small-talk instead of the first lines in the play between the Doctor and Nanny,or, to put it another way, Malle has led us both artfully and seamlessly into the performance and then, having done so, he throws in a touch of the Brechts by deliberately reminding us we're watching actors acting and not people living. The first time he tips his glove is via Wally Shawn's cup which has I Love NY written on it then later Andre explains to the visitors (who, I suspect, have been planted there for just that purpose) that it's now a different time. The acting throughout is beyond praise and a wonderful high note for Louis Malle to end his career. 10 out of 10 going away.

First, full disclosure: I've seen Uncle Vanya performed by the Bolshoi Theater, and have read the play over a dozen times, in the original Russian. It is dear to me, and I have some rather definite ideas about what it is, and what it should be.

Having said that...I must say that while I really liked how the actors were filmed coming into the rehearsal area from the streets of NY, and thought that several deviations from Chekhov were appropriate and even inspired, and though I was awed by the acting of Shawn, Larry Pine, and especially Brooke Smith, ...I had a few problems with this production.

Above all--I had a problem with Yelena (played by Julianne Moore) as a giggling airhead. Was this the idea of Moore, or director Gregory, or of David Mamet, who altered the original play? It certainly wasn't Chekhov. Yelena certainly is, in some respects, empty, false, hollow. But having her giggle in response to Vanya's confessions of love is completely at odds with what Chekhov had in mind. She may not be entirely serious, but she does take other people seriously; and her reaction here is more like pity and disgust than like levity and thoughtless dismissal. Yelena is not an airhead valley-girl.

The other problem arises from how the play is shot as a movie. As noted by zetes below, theater and film are different media. Obviously Chekhov, who died in 1904, was writing only with the stage in mind. Hence some dialog is bound to be either too weak, or too strong (probably the former). And sure enough, while Brooke Smith is absolutely WONDERFUL as Sonya throughout, her final speech--which in the original play is rousing, inspiring, really uplifting--comes across as way too understated. On the stage, Sonya should give her "We will find peace!" speech at full pitch, packed with emotion; but if Smith had given such a delivery here, with camera in a close-up shot of her as she spoke, the effect would have been completely over-the-top. Her delivery is the best it can be, given the medium; but it's not what Chekhov intended.

All this aside, there is a lot to like here, and I'm glad I was able to find this at the video rental store.

Vanya is one of my favorite plays. Have seen it several times--stage, movies, television. This is far and away the best production I've seen. Incredible performances. I was afraid the frame of a rehearsal, and the bare stage would get in the way. They did not. Actors doing Chekhov usually seem to be more like actors than people. This cast was completely believable as real people(ironically, set and "costumes" may actually have helped here). Don't know Brooke Smith or Larry Pine, but they should be getting good roles. Wasn't a Julianne Moore fan, but I am now. Never saw Shawn in a sustained role except "My Dinner with Andre".He was perfect.Malle used camera extremely well, but did not "open up" the play to irrelevant cinematic expansion. Vanya was BOTH a film and a play without sacrificing one to the other. Making it work as both was quite an accomplishment.

Other more articulate than I have said most of the positives. I rented this video because it was on a list and Louis Malle directed it. Having studied Chekov many years ago, I thought maybe this was just a campy title for a film that had nothing to do with Uncle Vanya. It turns out that it drew me back to the starkness of Chekov, forcing each character to carry a heavy burden to be engaging. I can't complain about one actor. It took me a while to accept Wallace Shawn, not as the volatile guy who has seen life pass him by and blames everyone else. To see him as a possible romantic character struck me as absurd at first, and then I saw his desperation and how he loves. He is far from a handsome man, perhaps we could say anything but handsome. And yet every time I see him I am captivated. He recently played a college professor on the sequel to the Big Bang Theory, "Young Sheldon." His confidence and the spark he exuded on that show are the opposite of his Uncle Vanya. For two hours I was captivated by this film, listening to every word, waiting for every interaction. Usually, I don't care for contrivances in film (Hamlet, for instance, set in the hippy community of 60's San Francisco), but if one has never seen Chekov, this is Chekov in all its "glory."

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!

Louis Malle made "My Dinner With Andre" about two old buddies, Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory, who meet and have a long conversation over dinner. The film is about that conversation and nothing much else. It was dominated by Andre Gregory's ridiculous New Age mumbo-jumbo.

In "Vanya on 42nd Street" Malle has brought Shawn and Gregory together again on screen and the results are predictably risible. Luckily, there's more to look at than just Shawn and Gregory - there is at least Julianne Moore. The rest of the cast are mostly familiar 3rd-rate faces, giving rather good performances, all the while presided over by Gregory with his prayer beads.

Malle seems to be trying to explode the prevailing notion that actors should look good if they are to arouse our complicity. Aside from Moore, none of these actors has a particularly watchable face. And Wallace Shawn has a speech impediment.

The mistake, I believe, that Malle and Shawn and Gregory have made is trying to make this beautiful play sound like it was written yesterday, about people we live next door to. Nowhere is there the slightest belief that we, the audience, are capable of the act of imagination that watching Chekhov unadulterated (i.e., a play written and set in early 20th-century Russia) requires. The only thing the film illuminates is "what a falling off was there" (what Hamlet says of the contrast between a portrait of his father and one of his uncle). How terribly little Shawn and Gregory have made these wonderful people seem! At times the actors sounded like they were talking to Dr Phil.

"Vanya on 42nd Street" is obviously yet another Shawn/Gregory silly dinner, only this time they were eating poor Chekhov.

There's no shortage of intelligent work in film. But here we have one of the most complexly referential things I've ever seen. Simple self-reference points to itself. Common self-reference points to the viewer defining the experience.

But Mingus used to say why have three threads when you can have seven? Here, some of the most adventurous thinkers in film give us four threads, actually four and a half.

We have the Chekhov play and the Mamet wrapping. Make no mistake that this is not an editing or a translation, but an annotation. We have two perspectives simultaneously. Add to that the notion of the play not as a play for an audience as intended, but an event conducted regularly by the performers for their own sake. This is a creation orchestrated by Gregory, the third thread. One can clearly see in some scenes neither Chekhov nor Mamet but artists collaborating in dialogs. The inner eyes and the outer eyes differ.

Fourth, we have Malle's creation which introduces us into the equation with deliberately shaky and sometimes misframed camerawork. We aren't part of any prior experience, but the actors do include the camera in their collaboration, as an independent thread. Watch how Andre works the camera.

And finally, we have the framing of the artists in real life. This is not simultaneous with the others and in any case excludes the filmmaker.

I recall seeing Paul Newman in the Color of Money in the first scene, acting on three levels simultaneously. It took my breath away. Here, the purpose of the whole contrivance is to challenge the actors (and the viewers!) to participate in a jazz ensemble of acting where the layer of reality is constantly shifting. They chose Uncle Vanya as the base for a reason, because his evershifting foci of love and hate in pairs provide cues for levelshifting.

Shawn really plays on this. His skill wasn't apparent to me on first viewing, especially in the first scenes, where all players are on stage and the non-focus actors have to be invisible. But on repeated viewings one can see his mastery, his shifting forehead! Maybe he could have been a Dostoyevsky. The two young women should be celebrated to the heavens for what they do together. I never believed so many giggles and gasps and stutters and excited silences could be so finely woven, tossed so lightly.

This is really, really good stuff, very smart. So far as an intelligent construction you won't see a superior. I never expect to see four levels at once again in film at least centered in the acting.

Like many others I was blown away by this film. It is SO hard to film a play, but Louis Malle and the actors have worked some incredible magic.

Anton Chekhov (1860-1904) was a famed Russian writer.His plays have lived on.Uncle Vanya is one of them.I read the play pretty recently, and it gives an excellent portrayal of unhappy people, who live their wasted life dealing with their misery.Over the course of three years director Andre Gregory and a group of actors rehearsed the play in the then-abandoned Amsterdam Theater on 42th street in New York City.The actors were in their street clothes and the performances were for an invited audience only.Gregory and Louis Malle decided to document the play.The result is Vanya on 42th Street (1994).This was the last movie of Louis Malle.The film is based on the English translation by David Mamet.Of course this whole thing wouldn't work if the cast wasn't something unique.And in this case it is.Wallace Shawn is the perfect man to play Vanya.Just look at the scene where he finally loses it and blames the professor for ruining his life.That's some amazing acting.The Finnish-born actor George Gaynes does brilliant work as Serybryakov.The then-rising star Julianne Moore is excellent as his young wife Yelena.Larry Pine is fantastic as Dr. Astrov, who likes to drink.Brooke Smith is amazing as Sonya with her unrequited love for Dr. Astrov.Lynn Cohen is terrific as Maman.And so is Jerry Mayer as Waffles.Stage actress Phoebe Brand gives her only movie performance playing Nanny and she does a great job.Also great work by Indian actress Madhur Jaffrey (Mrs. Chao) and Andre Gregory, who plays himself.There's some great spirit between these performers, that carries throughout the play.If you yearn for something intelligent, then you should watch Vanya on 42th Street.

If you aren't willing to sit through Chekov, stay away but otherwise, find this and feast!! It is so moving and wondrous. Beautiful performances abound and it is just terrific. I watched it after reacquainting myself with My Dinner With Andre. Tremendously moving and touching. So thrilled to own it and to be able to dive back in now and again and experience the work of gifted and deep people doing something beautiful and rich. Magnificent. Highly recommended! Wallace is just miraculous as is everyone else. This is what artistic work is about. Everybody in the arts wants to make a Citizen Kane and a Sgt. Peppers, a Le Sacre Du Printemps and a West Side Story, a Sweeney Todd and an Angels In America. Andre Gregory's direction and goal seems to be to find a level of communication and depth in the work that is both heightened and yet ultra realistic at the same time; in the end analysis the film therefore is affecting in a way that many productions aren't. He achieves this by working on a smaller scale yet allowing the actors all the room they need to get big when the play demands it. It reminds anyone involved in the arts that the process is everything. Doing good work with all your heart, mind and soul down to the smallest detail is all we can ask of ourselves. Within that there will be artists able to push through and be a part of something transcendent. This film is a lost gem. It didn't and it won't make a big noise. It doesn't matter, it has everything it needs to have to remind anyone who is able to take it in what the arts are all about, especially the theatrical arts. Forgive the sermon. Watch it.

The antithesis of a movie, no action, a single set, but what an experience. You are watching actors playing actors yet these are real people displaying real emotions, and you are drawn into the world they inhabit. Very few directors would have attempted it.

Now here's something you don't see everyday: a movie that opens as if like a documentary, then going right into a cast of characters doing a full rehearsal of a Chekhov play, Uncle Vanya, with only a few little breaks here and there to fully remind the audience "hey, this is still a bunch of 'real' people not even putting on but preparing to put on a play." Vanya on 42nd Street is something of a revelation in translating theater to film, or rather theater AS cinema, or vise-versa. As an audience watching an adaptation of a play we're often used to seeing a play taken from its roots on the stage to film, its realistic recreation presented live to an audience as an event where the spontaneity of life occurs from moment to moment without a break, fleshed out by way of the devices of the cinematic language (lighting, different focal points and shots, editing, music cues).

In the case of Vanya on 42nd Street we're watching a play take shape- at first slightly awkwardly, since I had never read or seen the play performed I wasn't even quite sure when the characters were starting to talk in the Chekhov language out of their own actors-playing characters voices- and we should be drawn in like a usual theater crowd. And we are, or at least I was, thanks to the very powerful and moving performances and the inherent wonders to be found in Chekhov's text. But Louis Malle plays around a little bit, or rather more than just a little bit. Because of the placement of the camera in certain scenes, and as it is a play rehearsed in a decrepit theater on 42nd street, we see an actor here and there in the background watching as a scene which is supposed to be taking place with just two of the characters in play, and something like this small touch creates something else to the process. The process of doing this play, even as a rehearsal, is kind of in the background of how the movie works as a *movie*, not as theater.

If this sounds a little complicated a dissection, it should be noted that Malle, a man who made many films and had this as his final film before he was taken away so suddenly, knows the essential thing is important: put on a great production of a play. And it works, fully: we're sucked into this story of a family in Russia torn apart by their love, or disconnect from it, mistrust, loneliness, bitterness, despair, and moments that ponder the very reason why we even go on living when things look to be the worst (the final speech given by Vanya's daughter played by Brooke Smith, should be considered a mini-masterpiece of the written word with it starting with "All we can do is live."). It's about wasted lives, or chances that have gone by for some, like Wallace Shawn's title character, for over half of a lifetime.

So Chekhov fans, of whom there are quite a few in the theater world, won't be disappointed in the least by the presentation. It's a best-of-both-worlds piece of art; we get the wonderful essentials of what it all comes down to in the world of theater as actors (such as Julianne Moore and Shawn and Smith who are all fantastic, sometimes nearing genius), totally in tune and prepared with this heavy work of intelligently gut-ripping familial drama, are revealed though Malle's careful and sometimes very subtle documentary approach. It's a double edged sword: we're watching a play, yes, but there's something else about watching theater as process, as something that evolves along, that is captured as well, which is something rare (maybe one other film, Bergman's minor but great work, After the Rehearsal, has this quality).

But at the same time, Louis Malle is directing a film that is fictional, and we are forced to still see things a certain way, to see real film lights hitting on what is supposed to be a "realistic" setting, and editing directing our eyes where to go in a big confrontation and with actors and their eyelines and the 180 degree rule and so on. There's even a very tricky moment I wasn't sure at first that I liked: in the second half there's a moment where Moore's character is thinking something to herself, about getting angry, about saying something she feels to Vanya or someone (i.e. the "mermaid" bit). Up until now we've seen these actors relatively in naturalistic conditions in terms of their own audience- the actors' dress rehearsal is being seen by a few guests- but this suddenly takes into consideration narration, and we're reminded it is all really a film.

I'm still not sure if this completely fits, but it's such a bold moment that I respect it all the same. Vanya on 42nd Street is an immensely stimulating experience both as pure drama and as an intellectual rendering of what theater and film represents as art forms. And as a final feature from a director like Malle is a very fine achievement; I'm tempted to say that, even imperfect as it is, it's sort of timeless in its approach to a 19th century Russian play. 9.5/10

This is a beautiful inquiry into the human condition. If you doubt that Chekhov was a brilliant writer, then this will be your gateway to excellence. The movie sports a wonderful cast while supposedly filmed during a dress-rehearsal. This is truly a movie to watch when in a serious and reflective mood, but despite such, it is a must see and an insightful gift from a phenomenal writer.

Like many slice of life films, this explores the hearts of the characters. Their desires and dreams, like many of us, do not reflect what becomes of their lives. Thus a questioning must occur. Am I dealt this hand or could I have been more?

If you like slice of life films, this is a must see.

I studied both "Three Sisters" and "The Cherry Orchard" in college, and thought that Chekhov must have written the most boring plays ever put to page. I reluctantly saw this film because I figured that nothing with Julianne Moore could be unwatchable. I was right about Julianne -- she's amazing in this film...but I was completely wrong about Anton Chekhov. You must see his work performed (by actors who know what to do with him) in order to appreciate his comedy and his understanding of human psychology and complexity. I have since become a fan of all of Chekhov's major works -- including "Three Sisters" and "The Cherry Orchard."

Larry Pine, Brooke Smith, and George Gaynes are also wonderful in this film.

If you are familiar with the play, you will marvel at the subtlety of the transition - from Monday-morning chatter about the weekend's activities among the cast members who have gathered for a rehearsal - to the play itself: Suddenly the dialog among the actors becomes identical with the lines in the play, the actors have, unbeknownst to viewers who haven't seen or read the play a few times, taken on their roles and begun the rehearsal/performance, a device which makes the action seem all the more authentically real and human. An interesting comment made to me by a Russian author(ess) whom I know: At the end when Sonya tells Uncle Vanya that in the bye and bye everything will be alright ("God will take pity on us...and we will rest"), in this Franco-American production Sonya seems to believe her own optimistically comforting words, whereas in a Russian production she - and Vanya - would know that any hope is only an illusion.

"Vanya on 42nd street" is Louis Malle's last film. It is a worthy conclusion of his career. The film has much in common with "My dinner with André" both regarding style (mixture of cinema and theater) and cast (Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory).

The film is about a rehearsal of the "Uncle Vanya" play of Anton Chekov in the empty and dilapidated New Amsterdam theater on the 42nd street in New York. This rehearsal did produce a film, but it did never produce a performance with live audience.

The rehearal character gives the performance on the one hand a modern twist. The actors are wearing their normal clothes. You see them drinking a cup of coffee out of a cardboard cup during a break and the next moment you see them performing in the same clothes.

On the other hand there is nothing changed in the content of the play. There has been no attempt to "translate" "Uncle Vanya" to modern times. By the way this would be quite unnecessary because the themes of "Uncle Vanya" (loneliness, longing, sense of uselessness and above all the fear for a wasted life) are of all times. At the end of the film Sonya (Brooke Smith) summarizes the fear of a wasted life as follows: "All we can do is live. We live through a long row of days and the endless evenings". After this she expresses the hope of a second chance and a more meaningfull life in the Hereafter.

It would be a misunderstanding to see "Vanya at 42 street" as a mere theater registration. In my opinion it is the best of both worlds. We have an outstanding play performed by outstanding actors and cinema adds to all this a marvelous composition of the images. Just look at the image at the end of the movie when all is said and done (mostly said), the visitors are gone and Vanya and Sonya resume their work at the estate (by the way this is also the scene of the above mentioned quote). The perpsective of this image, and there are many more, is so beautiful.

Finally one little remark about the casting. In the play Yelena (Julianne Moore) is the woman everyman loves. Sonya on the other hand is the woman that no man sees. The Sonya on 42nd street (Brooke Smith) however is so beautiful and captivating that this is hard to image.

Some movies are difficult to particularly describe. That could be on account of density in the narrative or craft, the sheer abundance of value (or lack thereof), specificity in the storytelling, or any other possible factors. With 'Vanya on 42nd Street,' there's just so much going on here, and all of it is so excellent, that I rather find myself at a loss for words. Who is most to thank for how brilliant and absorbing this picture is? One could reasonably say it's the cast acting in the play, each of whom turn in extraordinary and powerful performances of vibrant range, nuance, and personality to bring their characters and the story to life. The moment one focuses on a single player, in the next someone else is just as inspiring. Wallace Shawn, Julianne Moore, George Gaynes, Larry Pine, Brooke Smith, and the others demonstrate marvelous skill that is a true joy to behold as a viewer. Yet they are not alone in shaping this rendition of the drama. Andre Gregory, a masterful artist in many capacities, oversees the theatrical production with a natural ease, grace, and warmth that's both engrossing and disarming; would that one could have had the opportunity to see him work the stage! But what of Louis Malle? To spend any appreciable amount of time exploring cinema one is certain to come across Malle's name and his body of work, and his considerable reputation. There can be no doubt that this reputation is well deserved, and his mindful, meticulous approach to 'Vanya on 42nd Street' allows every emotion, every detail in the production, to flourish. From start to finish this is wholly enthralling.

And still, none of this would be possible without Anton Chekhov's original work published almost 100 years prior. 'Uncle Vanya' is a tale of stunning human drama: ignorance, failure, unresolved feelings, regret, disconsolation. The characters, their interactions, and the plot as a whole boast searing intensity that's splendidly rich - deeply satisfying, and rewarding, as one watches. Stark complexity courses through the storytelling and the themes, at once transporting the audience as we become invested but also underscoring a dour universality that quietly reveals itself. That latter point, it should be said, is accentuated by Gregory's production of the play, and by Malle's filming of it: a rundown theater, a bare-bones set that is more easily trod upon than the average stage, the street clothes, all of which suggest a more loose, open flow of ideas to and from and between people, cast and audience alike. As if to emphasize the point, 'Vanya on 42nd Street' flips so smoothly and unobtrusively from light patter preceding the start of the play, to beginning the first act, that in the moment it's easy to miss that there was any transition at all. With all this said - frankly, it's brilliant.

This is a movie for theater lovers, for art lovers, for those with utmost admiration of cinema as an art form. Those who struggle with the loftier side of the medium may not find this very appealing. For those receptive to what it has to offer, however, 'Vanya on 42nd Street' is an outstanding feature, with tremendous contributions from all, that is worth watching even if you have to go out of your way for it. Bravo!

If anything in life is certain it is that if you didn't like Louis Malle's "My Dinner with Andre" you won't like his "Vanya on 42nd Street. But even this cannot be entirely depended on, because if you have matured as a movie viewer since seeing "Andre", you might find yourself unexpectedly able to appreciate "Vanya".

Both films are superficially minimalist, relying on script and acting talent to entertain, although Malle's shot selection is also an important element of Vanya. The only real effect is a recorded voice-over sequence for Julianne Moore's character Yelana. As the voice-over plays Yelana's thoughts, the camera is tight on her face and Moore's facial expressions must subtly mirror her thoughts. This is a routine "film" device but in this stage-film context it provides Malle an opportunity to simultaneously utilize the best of both mediums. Acting for camera is different than acting for the stage, particularly in the degree of expression dimension. In this sequence Moore must act for the camera while pretending to be acting for a theater audience. I think this was the best sequence in the film, tight shots like this are an area where the film performance is more demanding than a live stage performance.

The opening scenes of "Vanya on 42nd Street" suggest "My Dinner with Andre", as each member of the scattered ensemble makes their way through the crowded streets of Manhattan for a rehearsal at the rundown New Amsterdam Theater. Once inside they exchange casual conversation and before we realize it the play has started. The lighting has been subtly altered and a large table on the stage has become a sitting room on a rural estate in Russia. But this is not a dress rehearsal and the cast performs in their street clothes.

The subject of Anton Chekhov's late 19th century play is what use should we make of our lives? The deeper subject is the moment of introspection when one confronts the fear that they have wasted theirs. Some complain that since the play is a translation from Russian and is over 100 years old, it reflects a culture too foreign to be of relevance today. While they are correct about regular reminders that the setting is not contemporary, you just as regularly find yourself surprised that Chekhov's subject and theme are so universal and timeless.

During Sonya's long monologue to close the film (perfectly handled by Brooke Smith who literally glows from the moment you see her in the first crowd scene) I was reminded of Virginia Woolf's likewise introspective "Mrs. Dalloway"-written 30 years later in England. Sonya closes the play by expressing her hopes that while we can do nothing but endure in this life, at least we may find a perfect mercy beyond the grave. Clarissa Dalloway looks through a bookshop window to find the passage "Fear no more the heat o' the sun/Nor the furious winter's rages".