479, 599, 762 André Gregory & Wallace Shawn: 3 Films

[HarryLong]

I hope everyone wears gloves when turning doorknobs.

..or more to the point, wears a dental dam over their lips teeth tongue and gums when turning doorknobs with their mouth.

Oh, hell, I'll just stay inside my bubble ...

[Lemmy Caution]

Really enjoyed this.
Just another example of how underappreciated Louis Malle is.
It's such a simple yet allusive style of film making.

Did anyone count how many references Andre Gregory makes to Nazis?
Somewhat extreme, though I did like the concept of New York as a new form of concentration camp where the inhabitants are both prisoners and guards.
That stretch of the film reminded me of a reasonably well-known anthropology professor I once had who would toss out all of these provocative ideas one after another in a weird whirlwind, without followup.

[zedz]

Similar hatreds are for people who clip their fucking fingernails on the subway and bus-- I dunno whats more annoying, the chips flying that way and this, or the fucking >click< sound itself. It makes me so batty that I just sit there glaring at the bastard through a red mist until they get the point and stop.

Not quite the same thing, but there's a scene in Tsai's Goodbye, Dragon Inn you might appreciate.

[Magic Hate Ball]

Just saw this today, I'll just repost my review:

Fascinating. Two people who don't particularly care for one another catching up after several years in a drab restaurant for two hours. This is the course of the film, and it should be a big dull dud. But it's not. The film is basically split into halves, the first half is almost entirely Andre telling Shawn about his experiences in Europe "finding himself", and then the second half is a dissection of these experiences and of Andre's new view of the world. It would be easy to say that the characters are black and white, but that would mean that you hadn't seen the film, because it's painfully obvious that they're not. They have differing opinions but they're more like two sides of one coin, both finding ways to deal with the stress and heat of life.

Like I said, it should be boring. The cinematography is mostly close-ups, in washed-out 16mm (even the quail they're served looks dejected), and with restaurant noise as the soundtrack (which gradually fades away as the restaurant empties). We don't even get to see the restaurant after they sit down at the table except through the mirror behind them. So it's literally two hours of talking heads. But it's more. The dialogue inspires incredible imagery; when Andre is talking about his (bizarre) experiences in Europe, staging "beehives" and living at a community where they talk to bugs and hallucinating, it plays out in our own heads. The film is thus doubled, with Andre and Shawn providing narration and our imaginations doing the visual work. This creates an interesting situation in that we come away from the film with clear images of the events, of Andre being led blindfolded through a field, of Shawn getting up in the morning to his cold coffee, of a monk doing a handstand on his fingers, and each viewer has seen it differently.

Roger Ebert is correct in calling it a film without cliches. It is totally original, totally unusual, totally bizarre.

[kinjitsu]

Vanya on 42nd Street announced

[CSM126]

I literally howled with joy when I saw this on the coming soon page. An all-time favorite of mine and a long-time dream Criterion. I cannot wait for this!

[matrixschmatrix]

Can you talk about it a little? I'd never heard of this movie before last night, and the description sounds like it could be anything from a really interesting and different way to translate stage to screen to a pointless actors' love-in.

[ezmbmh]

It's brilliant. The device aspects work well--the crumbling theater an analog to the play's touching on the crumbling of the aristocratic system in late 19th C Russia; the way the actors carry part of their roles in with them off the street; best of all how a read-through, done this well, takes on the power of a real play, as both we and the performers are drawn in.

But it's simply one of the best performances of the play or any Chekhov play I've seen, and as appealing as the artifices above may be to linger over, that's what matters most. Going home to feed my vhs to the dog.

[thatobscurecharm]

I love this film too! Undeniably minimalist featuring raw performances from the entire cast. Someone remarked how it was a one, long play rehearsal, but it was definitely more than that.

[CSM126]

It's a really amazing film, actually, It starts out as semi-documentary, the various actors making their way to the theater and Gregory showing some of his friends (who have come to watch the read-through) around the place, pleasantly pointing out how decrepit the abandoned place is (they even installed nets over their heads to catch the falling plaster!). And then the actors start milling about on "stage" (actually an area in the middle of the building where they tore out some seats, as the actual stage collapsed long ago) and before you even know it they slip right into Vanya. And from there, it's Uncle Vanya. No sets, no costumes; just a group of dedicated and massively-talented actors doing their thing. If you like Uncle Vanya, you'd like this. It's really just a stripped-down performance. The performers are all wonderful - I particularly find Brooke Smith to be utterly haunting and unforgettable, her performance is so deeply felt and lived-in. She has these moments (as Sonya, by the way) where she's all alone and talking about her love for Astrov, and she moves back and forth from the joy of love to the pain of rejection and it's just a marvel to behold. But like I said, they're all great: Wally Shawn as Vanya, Julianne Moore as Yelena, Larry Pine as Astrov, and on and on. Not a bad apple in the bunch.

As people have said (and will say again) this is very much a companion piece to Malle's My Dinner with Andre, as it is made quite the same way. Malle doesn't attempt anything "cinematic" with his camera here. He just lays back and documents the performance, with a few choice close-ups (again, Brooke Smith comes to my mind...) and some subtle movement that never distracts the viewer. He knows it's better to just let the actors shine, and my God they shine brilliantly.

I think the only way to fully appreciate the film is, well, to see it. I hope I'm inspiring you to do just that, because it is wonderful in every way,

[matrixschmatrix]

It sounds a little bit like Blood Wedding, the Saura movie- is that accurate? If so, I'm certainly more excited about it than I was.

[knives]

There are significant differences between the two, but same sport I suppose.

[colinr0380]

Here's the trailer

[CSM126]

Here's the trailer

And now I'm itching to pull out that old, out of print Sony DVD and watch it again right now. God, what a movie.

[cdnchris]

Just an FYI the sell sheets have both the Sony and Sony Pictures Classics logo for this film.

[Jack Phillips]

It's a really amazing film, actually, It starts out as semi-documentary, the various actors making their way to the theater and Gregory showing some of his friends (who have come to watch the read-through) around the place, pleasantly pointing out how decrepit the abandoned place is (they even installed nets over their heads to catch the falling plaster!). And then the actors start milling about on "stage" (actually an area in the middle of the building where they tore out some seats, as the actual stage collapsed long ago) and before you even know it they slip right into Vanya. And from there, it's Uncle Vanya.

All you say is true. I found the meta-theatrical stuff inessential but not unpleasing. The real strength of the film is that it's a Chekhov, and it's a Chekhov done very well. I'm definitely getting a copy. It's going to go very nicely next to my Blu-ray of Anton Chekhov's The Duel.

[Mr. Ned]

More Malle, can't go wrong with that!

[Numero Trois]

It sounds a little bit like Blood Wedding, the Saura movie- is that accurate? If so, I'm certainly more excited about it than I was.

That Saura film had the performers wearing costumes. While both films are stripped down, Vanya takes it even further with the actors wearing street clothes. It's organic and down-to-earth in the best possible way.

I'm quite blown away by this considering how quickly both the DVD and theatrical releases went away. Impeccable taste on C's part.

[ando]

Good one. This was my introduction to Chekhov and a very good one at that. Of course it's miles away (in terms of performance and production values) from the 1970 BBC Uncle Vanya (with Anthony Hopkins, Freddie Jones) that is my favorite adaptation but the relationship dynamics seem stronger in this treatment. Its intensity still burns from some 15 or so years ago when I first viewed it.

[flyonthewall2983]

George Gaynes is still alive?

[CSM126]

Blu-ray.com

Looks gorgeous

[stwrt]

Rather stingy with the extras - I suppose a commentary track on a Chekov play would've been a little difficult.

[bottled spider]

It wasn't until the film was nearly over that I started to warm to this treatment (seen a couple weeks ago on a non-Criterion DVD). Street clothes and a minimal set are fine, but... somehow the actors played their parts as if they imagined the characters were essentially versions of themselves -- 20th century New Yorkers -- and not Russian gentry of the previous century. Does that make it more authentic? More universal? I don't know, I preferred the BBC productions of Uncle Vanya and The Wood Demon (a earlier draft of Vanya).

But I'll watch the Criterion some time. I'm interested in the interview of Gregory.

[Forrest Taft]

I'm too lazy to look it up, so I'll just ask here: What is David Mamet's contribution to this? I've seen it listed on his writer's filmography. Did he only translate the play (for the stage)?

[cdnchris]

As I understand it Mamet wrote a modernized translation of the play, for the stage, which Gregoy came across and thought would be interesting to adapt. I don't think he had much more to do with what we get in the film than that.