Onegin - Eine Liebe in St. Petersburg

Fine performances highlight `Onegin,' a generally interesting version of Pushkin's complex love story whose contemporary significance shines through the tortured souls of its two main characters. Ralph Fiennes stars in the title role as a 19th Century Russian aristocrat who, like many similar figures in Russian literature of that time, suffers from the attenuating effects of enervation and ennui. Though the recipient of vast sums of wealth and property at the death of his uncle, Onegin finds no meaning or solace in life as he lives it. He is as bored by the stifling superficiality of the privileged elite languishing in splendor in the fancy halls and glittering ballrooms of cosmopolitan St. Petersburg as he is by the domestic dreariness of the provincials residing in the bucolic countryside where one of his uncle's vast estates is located. In the latter setting, while visiting Vladimir - a poet he has recently befriended - Onegin becomes drawn to Tatyana the beautiful younger sister of the man's fiancé. Both Onegin and Tatyana reflect a remarkably modern sensibility in their temperaments. For instance, though the attraction between the two is a mutual one, it is Tatyana who makes the first move, pouring out her unbridled love for this newcomer in a letter which Onegin politely rejects because he fears the deadening of the soul that he believes will inevitably accompany marriage and fidelity. One can't get much more contemporary in tone than these two characters, one stepping well out of the accustomed bounds accorded her sex in affairs of romance and the other reflecting the fear of commitment that is such a staple of modern times. Yet, fate plays its cruelest hand at the end, as Onegin finds himself, years later, trapped in an ironic role reversal as the now-married Tatyana is forced to rebuff the advances of the obsessed, lovelorn man whom she still admits to loving. As in many bleak works of Russian literature, the character is forced to live out his existence in a hell of his own making, suffering the torment of regret without end.

The personal drama unfolds against the fascinating backdrop of the subtly changing society of 19th Century Russia, a country that, then and now, has seemed to be always several centuries behind its European neighbors in its moves towards liberalization in the areas of basic human and civil rights. We see clearly the struggle between the empty ritualism and entrenched barbarism of the past, as reflected in the continuing institution of serfdom and in gun duels fought over affairs of honor, and the enlightened philosophy of the coming world, as many young aristocrats begin to champion both the abolition of serfdom and the growing acceptance of love as the foundation of marriage. Indeed, the two young lovers cannot extricate themselves from the entanglements that often accompany a time unsure of its traditions. Onegin, for all his talk about freeing his serfs, is himself forced to participate in a duel that both horrifies and disgusts him. And Tatyana, for all her comments about only marrying a man she loves, succumbs to the pressure of tradition, ultimately agreeing to a marriage based on class, money and position. Here are two people caught in a world not yet ready for them, who are forced to settle for the compromises their society has deemed fit and proper.

This well-acted, well-written and well-directed film may seem a bit slow at times, but the intelligence of the dialogue, the subtle underplaying of the cast and the quiet beauty of much of the direction lead us into a strange world of the past that still has resonance and relevance for the world of today.

This film is a visual delight and a faithful adaptation of the famous Pushkin poem. The story revolves around a country woman who falls for a sophisticated man. Starring handsome Ralph Fiennes as the title character and winsome Liv Tyler as his star-crossed love interest, viewers will get caught up in the ebb and flow of the romance, as well as the innovative and beautiful techniques of film-making. ( A scene where Liv Tyler's character writes a letter is spectacular.) As the first setting in the desolate countryside gives way to the bustling city of St. Petersburg in the second half, change and surprise is integral to the slow, well-developed storyline. See it for Fiennes performance and the talents of his sister and brother who directed and scored the film, respectively. Recommended as a great film for a winter's evening by the fire.

I was impressed so much by Onegin. Ralph Fiennes made me change my opinion about Onegin as person. When I read Onegin (at school) I could not pardon him for all the Tatiana's suffering, in my mind he was a devil, cynique and even cruel. In Ralph's performance I saw all the mystery of this person (Ralphs mystery...). in his eyes - parfois si impenetrables, si indifferents, soudain l'amour qui luit, la lumiere douce, un regard abandonne: Ralphs smile. Now when I think of Onegin I see Fiennes - a man in black bolivar, walking alone on Moika's embankment, tender and blessed heart behind cold eyes.

Excellent film!!! I was captivated by it, however, my wife fell asleep during the film. For those who enjoy Russian literature, this movie will captivate you; for those who have no exposure to it, it will not. So your preestablished experience will determine to a great extent your appreciation of this film.

The lead acting is superb! Ralph Fiennes and Liv Tyler are so good that they unfortunately show up everybody else. The setting, however, does not have much of a Russian feel to it, what with everybody trying to act French and all, which is very accurate to the time. (Thank *you* Peter the Great.)

As for the story, the movie is very faithful to the Pushkinian attitude. The story is very character-centred, typical to Russian lit. The change in Evgenyi Onegin (pronounced, "Yev-geh-ny Ah-nye-gin") is marked indeed. However, the character of Tatyana captivated me. Her faithfulness to herself and to her integrity, especially given the context of American film, is amazing. How refreshing to see a character turn down the opportunity to have an affair with the man she loves deeply out of loyalty and faithfulness to her husband whom she unfortunately doesn't really love. This is especially refreshing in light of prevailing attitudes towards marriage and in particular adultery. Liv Tyler portrays both the deep angst and yet the firm conviction of Tatyana beautifully.

I recommend this film heartily. I gave it a 10 in my rating, and I encourage anyone to view this film to escape the prevailing American Bruce Willis-type formula film, and allow this film to expand your perceptions and your mind, and to enjoy the challenge of seeing people grow, and thereby encourage yourself to do the same.

This is a very good film overall. Having grown up in Russia and being, as we would say here, `a great Pushkin's fan' ;-), I was caught between curiosity and caution when deciding whether I should even rent this film. Then I saw Ralph Fiennes name and thought that it could not be all that bad.so curiosity won. I was pleasantly surprised that the film is fairly faithful to the original. Not completely, of course, but when I think about horrible mutilations other filmmakers perform on marvelous works of literature, I'm very grateful that the producers of `Onegin' read the poem very well and chose scenes and changed some of them with care. I won't talk a lot about beauty of scenes in the film: it's a pleasure to watch. Here are some of the things I didn't like. First of all I was a little disappointed by the film's interiors. Several of them look very natural (some of the room's in Larin's and Onegin's houses). Others (like Petersburg palaces) more than anything resemble theatrical decorations. I don't think this was intentional, since the overall scenery is very realistic. Another objection is the lovemaking scene. I don't think it belongs or was needed at all. Was it just a due paid to modern filmmaking? Why not do Tatyana's dream instead (this is a meaningful symbolic scene in the poem, not filming it could hardly be an accidental decision, I would love to know what was the reason)? The third, kind of big problem is that married Tatyana is not clearly portrayed as the queen of Petersburg's society. This detail is very important for understanding of Onegin's character: a tragic figure who can only exist within the laws and decorations of high society - the very society he despises more than anything else. Tatyana, the queen of this society, a complete part of it and yet completely not involved with it, comfortably within and yet far above the chattering crowd - that very likely is the only thing Onegin can love. Unfortunately the question `am I noble enough for you now?' which Tatyana throws at Onegin during the climax scene of the film, does not fully convey that understanding and is an oversimplification compared to the speech that Pushkin's Tatyana gives to her fallen and still loved hero.