Vivamos de nuevo

When we consider such a classic writer as Leo Tolstoy, what we recall are, practically, two titles: WAR AND PEACE and ANNA KARENINA. We exclude other of his great works, for instance his last novel RESURRECTION.

The same thing seems to take place in cinema. While WAR AND PEACE and ANNA KARENINA are perhaps the two most popular screen adaptations of the great Russian writer, Tolstoy's 1899 novel occurs to be marginalized. Yet, the movie buff who not only obeys the rule of "fame wins popularity" but looks for something according to his/her preferences will find absolutely overwhelming films that may be watched and admired within the commercial walls of modern reality. One of such films is, undoubtedly, WE LIVE AGAIN (1934) by the innovative director Rouben Mamoulian, the film based on the aforementioned 1899 novel by Leo Tolstoy titled RESURRECTION.

If we consider the master director Rouben Mamoulian and the unusual way he handled his direction (just to mention some of his greatest movies like APPLAUSE, QUEEN Christina, DR JEKYLL AND MR HYDE, THE MARK OF ZORRO), we also notice that WE LIVE AGAIN is somehow underestimated and skipped. Nevertheless, if you are quite knowledgeable about Mamoulian's touch and once decide to see this film, you quickly realize that WE LIVE AGAIN appears to be no exception from the rest.

We are supplied with a wonderfully poetic handling of the story with excellent camera work and unforgettable scenes. From the very beginning that introduces viewers to the images of awakening nature in fields and blossoming trees, we clearly get a true rarity, something precious, artistic that, unfortunately, has not always been a desirable goal in cinema. The Russia of the 1870s is vividly depicted with its injustice, corruption and inequalities. There is a fabulous moment showing people hugging one another and saying "Christ is risen" on Easter Vigil. Something the code years in cinema really loved. Yet, within the decadence of conventions, does the proclamation convey anything more than a sheer slogan? The later story shows it does... The depiction of the social injustice expressed in the visual moment of the camera moving from a poor pot of prisoners' food to the lavish tables of aristocracy is another powerful merit of the movie. That was Mamoulian with his unbelievable flair for poetic view, poetic image; he talks to our hearts through image.

However, it is not only the director with his magical touch who makes the movie a true pleasure to watch. It is Fredric March in the lead as Prince Dmitri. Although some reviewers have already discussed his merits, I would like to highlight a point that, perhaps, has not been sufficiently examined yet. What makes March's performance so unique is not the actor's experience with the director Mamoulian two years earlier while working on the classic DR JEKYLL AND MR HYDE. Of course, that experience is one of the reasons for his fluent acting here but not the only reason indeed. It is neither any crucial moment in the actor's career, according to some confusing statements, as if at that moment (1934) Fredric March found himself between great director (Mamoulian) and great writer (Tolstoy). What makes the portrayal unique is a change of heart, a spiritual transformation that March beautifully executes. Having had experience with that sort of content in THE SIGN OF THE CROSS (1932) by Cecil B DeMille (some critics said that actually this change was hardly convincing), he supplies us with the fullness of genuine transformation of spirit, of heart in WE LIVE AGAIN. Here, he is not convinced by his beloved Christian girl that it is good to be a martyr but by the inner experience and a touching prayer. He is not afraid to become a mocked scapegoat in a decadent society, he does not hesitate to lose his wealth. All he wants is to stand in truth, atone for evil deeds and start a new life. Dmitri, as if, rises again from the miserable death in selfishness to the glorious life in love. The way March crafts this aspect is a must-see!

His co-star, Ana Sten as Katusha is, certainly, not the proportion of stardom that was the privilege for Garbo, Shearer or Dietrich at that time. Yet, I don't quite think that a very famous actress would have done well in role of a poor village girl whose only 'sin was poverty.' The role of Katusha must highlight social injustice, bitter tears and certain degree of genuine innocence in the 'lost paradise' of youthful enthusiasm. Those are the key aspects of Tolstoy. He shows the fact that innocence and good heart suffers in the decadent world of low-spirited materialism. And Ms Sten is very good for this role. Consider her moments of the trial and the bitterness she wants to convey in the talks with Dmitri. There are feelings of anger and helplessness, of hope being lost...fortunately the hope that may still experience the miracle of resurrection. In the final moment, she beautifully escapes the tendency of a clichéd face so notably encountered in the genre and evokes something powerful yet usually ignored on screen.

A special mention must also be made of the supporting cast, in particular C Aubrey Smith in the memorable role of Prince Kortchagin. and Jessie Ralph as Matrona Pavlovna. Although Ms Ralph is perhaps best remembered thanks to her significant role in CAMILLE, C Aubrey Smith was a mainstay of silver screen Hollywood production, including films by greatest directors like Mamoulian, Griffith, DeMille, Von Sternberg and LeRoy.

WE LIVE AGAIN by Rouben Mamoulian is a fabulous film, another classic that has so many things to offer. Its thought provoking content based on the great writer's own thoughts and its genuine artistry make it worth seeing in the 21st century so that it can live again in our minds after all these years.

While Anna karenina is just a story about adultery, We live again and Les Miserables is a powerful social critique of social inequality, the situation of prisons, retreat and the redemption of individuals for past failures. Frederick March was excellent in this film and in the classic based on the book by Victor Hugo. These are two very profound stories. Tolstoy was a genius

With Samuel Goldwyn as producer, I knew this would be a cut above average but I was unprepared for the jolt it gave me. This adaptation of the Tolstoy novel was made by people with intelligence and soul and it shows. Director Rouben Mamoulian and his team provide - by Hollywood standards, at least - an evocative slice of 19th century Russian life in this moving tale of a young aristocrat who under pressure from family abandons his populist leanings to pursue a military officer's career; he also uses and abuses a beautiful servant girl (Anna Sten), only to encounter her years later while serving as a juror at her trial for murder. His way of coming to terms with the situation is what makes the story great.

Mamoulian, ever the cerebral showman, serves up generous tableaux of Old Russia: peasants laboring in the fields, Eastern Orthodox church ritual, decadent aristocratic house parties – all adding to our understanding of the era and the forces that shaped it. The film is filled with beautifully staged pictures packed with information about that place at that time. Deftly constructed scenes illustrating the social divide are interspersed with gently erotic interludes between the major players. The ideas which captivated the minds of millions during the Russian revolutions of the 20th century are clearly spelled out in brief but pointed conversations among philosophical adversaries. Gregg Toland's ravishing cinematography serves the script, never going for the elaborate effect unless the effect serves to heighten the story and the point being made at the moment.

Anna Sten is notable for the honesty of her emotional expressions. Her reaction when she realizes that March has used her as a common whore is original and unconventional by the standards of the period. She was an actress of both passion and charm who was mishandled by the studio system and derailed from what could have been a major film career. Some say her "thick Russian accent" destroyed her Hollywood career, but no one seeing this film could possibly agree. Yes, she has an accent, but far thinner than Garbo's in Anna Christie or Grand Hotel. No, there had to be other reasons for her drift into comparative oblivion, and those reason are related to the unreal commercial hype surrounding her introduction to American audiences.

Fredric March was one of the better and more versatile actors of his generation. His moments of self-revelation toward the end of this film are masterfully executed. The supporting cast includes C. Aubrey Smith as an insufferably smug pillar of society, Ethel Griffies (the crusty ornithologist in Hitchcock's The Birds three decades later) as March's conservative and doting aunt, and the warm and homely Jessie Ralph as one of Sten's servants. A bearded Sam Jaffe plays a radical polemicist in a manner as sane and clear-headed as he was insane and pinheaded in The Scarlet Empress. Leonid Kinsley is very well cast as a peasant on the dock with Sten at the trial. It is worth mentioning that March played another selfish 19th century military man in another Tolstoy adaptation a year later – namely Vronsky in Selznick's Anna Karenina. This film must have been good practice.

Russia-set costume drama from United Artists, Samuel Goldwyn, and director Rouben Mamoulian. Callow young nobleman and soldier Prince Dmitri (Fredric March) has an affair with peasant girl Katusha (Anna Sten), unknowingly leaving her pregnant and without support. Many years later, he encounters her again when he is serving jury duty and she comes up for trial on charges of murder, and he swears to help her however he can. Also featuring C. Aubrey Smith, Jane Baxter, Ethel Griffies, Sam Jaffe, Charles Middleton, Jessie Ralph, Leonid Kinskey, Dale Fuller, Richard Alexander, and Halliwell Hobbes.

Based on the Tolstoy novel Resurrection, what this lacks in script polish it makes up for in handsome visuals. Mamoulian was one of the few directors who seemed to recall, after the advent of sound, that film is a visual medium. Too many early thirties films are static, turgid gabfests, whereas Mamoulian takes care to frame beautiful compositions with striking lighting and visual splendor. The highlight here is a lengthy Russian Orthodox church ceremony. March and Sten turn in decent performances, but the film is hampered by a rushed telling of the tale, and a trite ending.

I finally caught up with this film on DVD and it provoked a lot of questions that merit further research into its production history. I can easily see why it was such a box office flop, despite its high production values, luminous photography and fine cast. Although Goldwyn hired a slew of heavyweight writers (Maxwell Anderson and Preston Sturges among them) the script frequently gets bogged down in preachy rhetoric and as others have noted here, pro Communist theory. Anna Sten is extremely photogenic but her acting style is so emotive, I wondered if she believed she was appearing in a silent film. Frederic March gave a beautiful performance in contrast. The most interesting aspect of the film is its treatment of casual sex and illegitimacy, both taboo subjects under the soon to be enforced Production Code. I'm sure this film was never reissued after 1934 for that content and also its very left wing undercurrent, which may explain why the DVD print was in such remarkable shape. The supporting cast (as always in such films of the period) makes it a joy to watch. It is fascinating to compare with THE SCARLET EMPRESS (released the same year) and ANNA KARENINA (1935) An interesting curio and worth seeing.