Watch Vanya on 42nd Street For Free

How sad is this?

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

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

A group of New York actors go to a 42nd Street theatre and rehearse their production of Chekhov's Uncle Vanya. The result is an interesting experiment, though still a novelty film.Many reviewers here have claimed that they got completely into the play, and forgot they were only watching a group of characters rehersing Vanya. I rather thought its success was the way it operated half as actors rehersing Vanya, half as the action of Chekhov's play itself - and the way Malle vascillated every now and then between which reality was stronger. The two most effective moments in it for me were...(spoilers - these two bits are nicer as surprises)When all of a sudden we hear a voiceover - we hear a character's thoughts. This isn't part of the rehersal. The audience inside the theatre don't hear this - only the audience of the movie, me, hear it. This moment suddenly zoomed me into the action of the play... and for a while after had me wondering, okay, is this stuff really happening? Is this play real? The other one, of course, as zetes mentioned, is the cup saying "I love NY," which zooms us into the reality of the artifice, the performance.(end spoilers)I didn't think the rehersal was perfect, though. It may be better than any Chekhov anyone has seen, but it still had the artifact of any translated play, particularly Russian ones, of dialogue which is impossible to make sound anything but theatrical, actors reading lines. No single line of dialogue here is something an english-speaker would say. It just doesn't sound natural - so, no - i don't think it works completely as action, and therefore i was always aware of the artifice, the performance - and the value of this very quickly wore off, and i got very bored. For it to completely work, you have to get into the action of the play - and i don't think it succeeds at that.I was always aware of both levels of reality - never completely in both of them - which is an achievement as a novelty - but its novelty had worn off very quickly before its two hour running time ran out.3/5. Julianne Moore virtually carries this film on her shoulders, by the way. She's magnificent.

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 loved the flow of this film how it starts with a street scene, the actors merge together at the door of the theatre, engage in some small-talk with each other and the hero Vanya --not in character yet --sleeps --two Larry Pine and Phoebe Brand sit at a table --then we hear the sound of bells --then the performance begins. This flow from the street into the theatre then into the drama is done so effortlessly that I watched it many times over. One really sensed that the actors enjoyed making this film. Wallace Shawn as Uncle Vanya --what an actor. Loved it. This film is the best introduction to Chekhov I know of --other than seeing it in a local theatre. I have watched it four times --because I think one can learn about stagecraft, acting, as well as film production. If the cast or director ever come by here --let me say thank you.