Anna Karenina

Did you know Greta Garbo played Anna Karenina twice? I didn't know, but once I found out, I rented the silent version at once. It's not the greatest story out there, but it is a classic, and for some reason, I watch every version I can get my hands on.

This one has a different title, and for good reason: it's quite different. It's contemporary-and by that, of course, I mean it takes place in 1927-and the tragic tone is put on hold for the purpose of entertainment. Anna Karenina wears breezy dresses and a cloche hat while falling in love with Count Vronsky, a military hero. She's still married to an older, respectable man she doesn't love, and she still has a little boy she loves more than anything. Without spoiling anything, I'll just tell you to rent this version if you haven't been happy with the other versions you've seen. It's pretty different, and it will please a lot of people. I enjoyed it because it served as a perfect example of why silent movies were so popular. This movie doesn't feel like it's missing anything. It's a simple story of two people falling in love, and with only a few title cards, the entire story can be unfolded in silence. Dialogue simply isn't needed, which was why many audience members didn't see the need for talkies when they first came out. Many people nowadays don't know this, but it took a couple of years of gradually fading out the silent movies for people to completely abandon them and flock to the talkies.

I've always been an ardent fan of Flesh and the Devil, but then I saw Love. This movie is absolutely beautiful, there's no other word to describe it. Whereas Flesh and the Devil seemed to be crass commercialism, Love is more subtle in many ways.

I gave this movie a 9 due to two rather melodramatic moments where Garbo wasn't exactly restraining herself. However, there are enough scenes where she conveys Anna's inner turmoil by the most fleeting and eloquent of expressions. The lighting in her scenes are breathtakingly beautiful, and I can only imagine how long it took to set it up just right! In so many of her scenes she is heartbreaking, especially when, exiled from her home, she sees a schoolboy and momentarily believes that he is her son and tries to embrace him. When he struggles and runs away, she does a wonderful job portraying Anna's rather unstable mind, which she does to great effect throughout the picture. In the beginning, however, when she first meets Vronsky, she seems to be in control of herself, and there is a wonderfully imperious stare in close-up, followed quickly by a close-up of Gilbert. As I watched her, I was astonished when I remembered that she was only 22 in this film.

Which brings us to Gilbert. For those who think of him as simply Valentino's successor as the Great Lover, being no more than a slab of meat for the delight of female audiences, need to watch this film. He is simply perfect, the model of natural acting -- there is not a hint of melodrama or the "ham" about him. He is completely in love with Anna, but there are none of the breast-heaving love scenes that are throughout Flesh and the Devil. He is jealous of anybody coming between him and Anna, but there are no widened eyes and arm waving. Simply jamming his hands in his pockets and an angry stare into the distance.

My only complaint with this film was the presentation on TCM. They used a live performance, and we get the "audience reaction" throughout the film. Which is fine at points, but for the most part, the reaction is totally wrong. Too many times there was laughter at what was, in 1927, a very dramatic moment. When Jack is too busy looking at Garbo to blow out the match and ends up burning his finger, that's funny. But when Anna says the profound line to the jealous Vronsky "There is no more or less in love -- I love you both infinitely" (referring to her son), the laughter was totally inappropriate. I hope this is not the avenue of any future TCM silent movies. Even though modern audiences are supposedly more "sophisticated," they aren't sophisticated enough to appreciate what "worked" 70-75 years ago. Even though these movies are old, there are still images and "lines" that are as ageless as Garbo's face.

Back in the day this silent version of Anna Karenina was all the rage because in that year that talkies made their debut, the film was part of the famous Greta Garbo/John Gilbert group that was passionately daring for its time. That scene where Gilbert after helping a lady in distress in the snowy Russian winter, when they get to shelter and she takes off the hoodie on her parka and Gilbert does a triple take at Garbo's beauty is still one of the best love at first sight scenes in the history of cinema.

The passionate sparks from Garbo and Gilbert still thrill many. But ninety years after Tolstoy's novel got the full MGM tratment we can get real critical over the happy ending the film got. There was a more realistic ending apparently filmed for foreign markets. But I can only critique what I see.

Still for me the best version of Anna Karenina was the one Vivien Leigh did in 1948 which was closest to Tolstoy's work. The sound remake that Garbo did with Fredric March as Count Vronsky is better than this one. The ending there is tragic, but there is a postscript softening of Vronsky's character.

Fans of Greta Garbo and John Gilbert should still like this. But Tolstoy purists will be disappointed.

As I have stated before and often in my reviews, I don't care whether or not a film adaptation is faithful to its source material; my only requirement is that it be good and stand on its own two feet. Love (1927) mostly does this; I haven't read Anna Karenina, though I am familiar with the basic outline of the plot. Love hits the high points of the story, though it does make the relationship between Anna and Vronsky more a case of two soul mates finding one another than what those two characters are in the novel.

Garbo is luminescent as Anna. She was not only gorgeous, but she could communicate such depth and soul despite being featured in so many standard melodramas. Gilbert does good and is ardent as the romantic lead, but Garbo steals the show. As is usual with most 1920s MGM melodramas, the production is lavish and pretty. My biggest issue is that the story is incredibly rushed; everything moves so quickly and it feels like scenes were even lost or snipped. Nothing develops gradually. Aside from that problem, Love is a nice romantic drama, though if you want your Garbo-Gilbert fix, you're better off with Flesh and the Devil or A Woman of Affairs.

On the heels of "Flesh and the Devil," MGM naturally teamed up the two highly-publicized romantics once again in an adaptation of Leo Tolstoy's 1877 novel 'Anna Karenina' with the release of November 1927's "Love." Greta Garbo is married to an old rich sod. When she meets Vronsky (John Gilbert), a captain in the Russian Army, her Anna slowly warms up to and eventually embraces his love. Instead of a duel when her husband finds out about their relationship, he shuts the door on her as well as forbids her to see their son ever again.

"Love," originally with the working title 'Heat' to allow MGM's publicity department to run wild with romantic possibilities, was changed when an adman came out with the advertisement stating "Greta Garbo and John Gilbert in LOVE." There were two alternate endings filmed, one with a European sad conclusion while the American had a more chipper fade out.

Garbo and Gilbert appeared in two additional movies together. "Love," however, was Gilbert's rare opportunity to direct a few scenes in his movie. First Dimitri Buchowetzki, then Edmund Goulding directed a majority of scenes for MGM. Producer Irving Thalberg wasn't happy seeing the roughly-edited movie. Through Garbo's insistence, Thalberg turned to Gilbert and the producer's favorite cameraman, Willian Daniels, to reshoot some of the scenes that he felt needed replacing. Once the Gilbert/Daniels team finished, the re-edited sequences pleased Thalberg and was released to great fanfare, solidifying Garbo's stardom.