Krieg und Frieden - Teil 1: Andrej Bolkonski

Part I of Sergei Bondarchuk's relentlessly ambitious 1965-67 War and Peace, "Andrei Bolkonsky", debuted at the Moscow Film Festival in 1965 and won the Grand Prix. It was also torn apart by critics at that time, according to The Criterion Collection, because it was played at that festival in an unfinished state. It later went to regular theatres, finished, in 1966 and became part of a cinematic phenomenon. Part I gives us an appetizer for the battle scenes to come with Austerlitz. These scenes aren't as impressive as the ones in parts III and IV, but they are gripping and terrifying in their own right.

From the word go, War and Peace boasts an elaborate production speaking to a director with an artistic vision. Nothing is "too much": In Part I, we see a bear attend a debauched aristocrats' party, because why not? We could cut the bear to spare the expense, but no, keep the bear. The creativity is also there, and even if we're looking at something ordinary, it still leaves me impressed. A tree almost comes to life, as if by magic, and we also see some ghostly images as viewed by Natasha. Natasha appears fairly young here, and as with Boyhood (2014), War and Peace offers a rare experience of seeing characters age naturally, a result of a years-long production.

Part I also gives us some philosophy to contemplate by means of Andrei and Pierre's discussions. The fact that Pierre refers to Napoleon here as "the greatest man in the world" is, to say the least, interesting considering what he plans to do in Part IV. If you've finished Part I, fasten your seatbelts - there's a lot more to come.

War and Peace Leo Tolstoy' best work-and it's also my favorite tome. After poring over the weighty tome, I couldn't help trying to review it by the way of movie. However, after watching American and BBC' s mode, I suppose this movie should be the best one which lives up to even Tolstoy himself ' expectation (if he could watch it). Admitted America' s War and Peace is pretty grand, but it is less amazing comparing with its Soviet Union's counterpart which took 5 years to finish production and cost over $560 million.... No pain no gain: This movie still won Oscar during the cold War because its amazing production could devastate the political wall mounting between the two super powers. Again, Russian director and actors made use of their best understanding of their domestic classic and created a piece of art work, a masterpiece in front of our audience. There I have to say that it is the power of loyalty to art instead of to business. Only in this way, this movie could be made;only in his way, Shawshank could be classic.... All right, let's back to the point:why do I say this movie must be a masterpiece: First, I have to admit that the cast of the movie is perfect: Admitted the actors performing Andrei, Pierre and Helen are no longer young, but they do have the same or similar bearing comparing with these characters in the tometome:The actor performing Pierre is the director of the movie. He is quite similar to Pierre himself as he is overweight, idealistic, kind, and is sometimes embarrassed simultaneously. Mr. Bondarchuk also acts as a round peg in a square hole in this movie, which is especially Pierre' s trait. Moreover, Tikhonov acts a superficially remote and abstinent while innately patriotic good young man-Andrei. He must be the perfect actor in performing Andre. Anatolia Ktorov is also perfect in performing an impatient and strict old-styled aristocrat. What does a truly Russian old-fashioned aristocrat look like? He shouldn't be the rude Russian farmer in American War and Peace movie. Rather, he should be thin and has an aquiline nose;he should be strict with his kids and be stubborn ;he should be smart and prospective when he observes the current national situation.... All in all, he should be aristocratic. A lot of people tend to compare Hepburn with Lyudmila Saveleva, who performs Natasha in this movie. I have to say that Saveleva is perfect in showing another same Natasha.The reason why I think so is not only her competitive beautiful appearance, but also her enthusiastic and sometimes still a little childish behaviors-she is only a debutante who is not bond with any mundane rules and regulations;she only her intuition and acts as a free bird.... All in all, that's what Lyudmila has shown in front of us, which is rear to be seen from other actresses.... Secondly, this movie well shows the Russian Spirit. What does it mean? Russian Spirit? Something abstract and ethereal? Yes, it's really hard to explain what a nation' spirit means or looks like. However, through the movie, we can see some snippets giving us a hint: When the people from other countries are confined into the house on snowy chill days, Rostov' family instead hang out but sleighs and have a great time. In the war place, Russian soldiers are faced with death in the same way of gambling-even they lose they won't spit their fate;death and hurt is like something happens every day. In this way, we can imagine how bold and unconstrained the Russian are. Third, the episodes delineating wars are really grand. Imagine:the Soviet Union prepared 695 ancient canons and 587 contemporary canons for the wars. They also ran off 16600 grenades and 20900 pairs of clothes. They even established a contemporary fake big Moscow to show the fires Moscow. All in all, it's an epic.... Finally, Tolstoy's conception of history is shown totally in this movie, too: He doubted it is heroes who create the history. Rather, he thought the heroes ideas couldn't penetrate into the lower classes and couldn't change the war. So that's why though Kutuzov is self-knowing while Napoleon is not, they all can't act as they one who stop the history but they have to act. Instead the soldiers fighting hard and exhausted horses are truly heroes through the history.... So that's what I want to say about this movie. I really wanna know guys what you are waiting for? Just sit down and watch this series patiently. Only in this so called ''should be condensed'' way,a classic weighty tome can be showed perfectly. Only these patient and sagacious men can grasp the opportunity to appreciate this artistry, this feast of aesthetics....

'War and Peace' is from personal perspective one of the magnum opuses in literature. It is very powerful, admittedly not the easiest to be gripped by straightaway, and the story is very rich with complex characterisation and themes. It is very difficult to adapt as a result of all of this, as well as the mammoth length. From personal experience, as an avid reader of all genres this and Stephen King's 'IT', at least they're the ones coming to mind at the moment, have the longest lengths of any book.

Anybody who even as much attempts to adapt Leo Tolstoy's magnum opus 'War and Peace' deserves at least a pat on the back for trying, regardless of how successful it is in doing so or not. This adaptation from Sergei Bondarchuk is one of the best, evidenced already in this first part, alongside the 1972 mini-series. When it comes to flawed but towering achievements, this adaptation immediately fits that distinction, something that shouldn't be missed regardless of whether you speak or have knowledge of Russian or not. Part 1 is excellent and starts the adaptation off on a more than promising note, though all four parts have so many fantastic merits in their own way. Even if more than one sitting is necessary as the whole adaptation is very lengthy and heavy going (not meant in a bad way).

Pacing at times could have been tighter as we are introduced to the characters. And the tone is occasionally a touch too sullen, the savage satirical bite that is sometimes adopted in the source material could have been brought out more.

Mostly though the acting is fine. Particularly Vyacheslav Tikhonov, while Bondarchuk himself as Pierre has grown on me and Pierre is one of the more fleshed out characters here.

Visually, 'War and Peace Part 1: Andrei Bolkonsky' is stunning. The scenery and period detail is spectacular and gives a sense of time and place far better than any other version of War and Peace and the cinematography is inventive and enough to take the breath away. The scope and spectacle is also enormous and that is apparent in the truly gut wrenching war scenes. Enhanced by a truly chilling music score, not only music that was emotionally powerful and beautiful to listen to but also gave a sense that the story was set in Russia in the way that few of the other versions managed to achieve, only the 2016 music score came close.

The script is rich in detail, thoughtful and mostly true to Tolstoy's style, and the story while not the easiest to get into straightaway is compelling on the whole, at its best in the war scenes. Fans of the book will be thrilled to find as many of the key scenes, themes and characters kept intact as much as possible and with the full impact they should do, while the human drama is more often than not thoughtful and genuinely poignant, even if here a lot of it is set up. The characters don't come over as caricatures, with Pierre actually being the most real character here. Bondarchuk's direction is remarkable, his task was monumental and he succeeded in making it completely fascinating and the spectacle is not just jaw dropping visually it has soul and emotional impact.

Altogether, excellent first part to a towering achievement. 9/10

So many good directors began their careers as actors. It's the last thing you'd expect. Bondarchuk, like surprisingly many other actors, knows how to handle a wide screen, how to enchant his images, how to keep seemingly mundane footage alive; he can handle everything from soliloquies to mammoth battle scenes; and he ALMOST manages to put it all together into a perfectly constructed seven-hour epic. Alas, not quite. Instalments three and four (three especially) have the air of having been made in the editing suite, after the director had failed to assemble all the shots he needed. But instalments one and two are perfect. Of the two, Part One is the more breathtaking ... not that there's anything wrong with Part Two, but its scope is narrower: it's heavily pre-occupied with its title character (Natasha), and the "war" part of the story is lost even as a backdrop.

The "war" scenes in Part One are the best in the whole four-part movie, by a long shot - mainly because they have a point. The scenes of Russia away from the front are all implicitly related to the war (and, by some magical means - it's all in Tolstoy, and I don't understand how it works there, either - to each other), and when we see the actual war, crystallised in a single battle, Bondarchuk (as Tolstoy was doing in the early parts of the book) is trying to convey something other than mere chaos.

Watch the whole four-part film. It's amazing. But almost all of the secret of its success is contained within Part One.

What on Earth was that?

I watched the first hour and switched off. I couldn't bear this film. I dread to think that there were seven more hours to go. It committed the Adaptational Cardinal Sin: making me doubt my appreciation for the source material.

This is a very austere adaptation of War and Peace. Really, this film's true audience is cinéastes! If you are studying filmmaking or enjoy lavishly crafted, well-directed shots, this is the film for you. Every shot is very stylised. You could take each one individually and turn it into a painting. "Spectacle" is certainly the film's priority. Far be it for me to critique the talent that has gone into it, because obviously the production effort is overwhelmingly impressive.

But as an adaptation of Tolstoy, I just hated it! It's so dreary.

"...if I were to be told that what I should write would be read in about twenty years' time by those who are now children, and that they would laugh and cry over it and love life, I would devote all my own life and all my energies to it." ~ Leo Tolstoy

Nobody is laughing and crying and loving life over this film. At all.

The actors averaged about one facial expression each. (There are no exceptions.) The camera barely panned onto their faces in some scenes where emotionally crucial things were happening. I know that might be deliberate, as it could symbolise the very Tolstoyan theme of human smallness amidst the broader, 'infinite' world...but no. Tolstoy is still interested in people despite his belief in their smallness! He still zooms in and privileges their experiences. Indeed, his moments of happiness and humour are exquisitely written.

Not in this film.

I don't understand - or agree with - how this adaptation is heralded as the 'closest' to what Tolstoy wrote. For all its austerity and length, it still reduces Anna Mikhailovna to almost nothing, whereas the (shorter!) 2016 miniseries managed to keep her in with all her glory. (Ironically, considering that adaptation's faster pace.) Another IMDB review informs me that Platon Karataev gets very little screentime, which spectacularly misses the point of the book. (Though full disclaimer - I myself didn't get that far.)

Some scenes were just ridiculous. Natasha and Boris's youthful engagement 'kiss' was played to dreary religious music and background noise, and we barely even see the characters speak to each other. Another botch-job is when Marya gives the cross to Andrey. In the book, that scene is heartwarming and poignantly funny! Andrey is a bit cynical about religion but humours his sister anyway. She is aware of this but insists. There's an affectionate humour underlying it. In this film, she puts the cross on him, they make the sign of the cross several times, they both look very grim and miserable, dreary music, cut away to another gorgeous shot...

Jesus Christ.

I reserve judgement because I didn't watch the whole eight hours, but from what I did watch, no. No no no.