Opiniones de usuarios

First off, let us concede that neither the 1935 Greta Garbo "Anna Karenina" nor the 1948 Vivian Leigh version comes close to capturing the complexities of Tolstoy's masterpiece. Most significantly, Konstantin Levin and Kitty's relationship, and more particularly, Levin's protracted personal and metaphysical development, are dropped entirely, both screenplays preferring to treat the story as an adulterous romantic triangle with snowflakes instead of palm trees.

That said, what we are left with in both films are masterpieces of film craftsmanship, where the triple triumphs of cinematography, art direction, and costume design are the real stars.

Which is not in any way to lessen the contributions of the cast, who in both instances, make the best of what they have to work with.

Garbo enchants in many of her individual scenes, particularly with Freddy Bartholomew and Maureen O'Sullivan, (as Kitty). Who can forget her advising Kitty to seize her fleeting youth, with its promise of a dream prince to emerge from the blue haze of the mountain top. Equally impressive, is her muted aversion to Alexei Karenin, (Basil Rathbone).

But she fails in her depiction of a fatal love for Count Vronsky (Frederic March). Garbo, with her solemn, majestic and singular self possession--her "Queen Christina" like cerebral detachment, is simply too thoughtful, too deliberate, to in any way convey Tolstoy's impulsive, febrile and thoughtless anti-heroine.

True, she had forsaken all for John Gilbert in "Christina," but that decision was the result of deep and thorough soul searching, and explained with the eloquence of Solomon to her courtiers. In "Camille" she is by profession a lover, and so her ultimate renunciation of Armand, reveals the true depth of her character. But one cannot conceive of her destroying the lives of others to satisfy a whimsical infatuation.

And this is where Miss Leigh's Anna trumps Garbo, for Miss Leigh does successfully transmit Anna's neurasthenic and utterly reckless collapse at the feet of the dashing Count. She seems blown by forces much stronger than she--a daffodil in a windstorm, and light years from Garbo's deep Scandanavian imperturbability.

Given the alleged similarities between Miss Leigh and Anna's disposition, perhaps this is life imitating art. In any case, it is why she makes a truer Anna, and why the role serves as a warm up for Blanche Dubois...

She is also abetted in her interpretation, by the genuinely eerie, recurring, nightmare sequence--with the Charon like, white bearded old man, forever dogging her as he chinks away at the ice. An ill omen indeed ! And Miss Leigh conveys the desperation of her impending doom in every gesture and nuance.

Then too Keiron Moore, (despite being an inferior actor to Frederic March) is much more dashing and handsome as Vronsky--a fact which, at least in terms of audience sympathy, helps explain the attraction.

Strangely, Mr. March who had been so visually appealing as Dr. Jeckyll, just a few years earlier, photographs very poorly in the Garbo version, and is not helped by a buzz haircut.

And as superb as Cedric Gibbons sets and Adrian's costumes are as a backdrop for Garbo, we feel Mr.Andrejew's art direction and Cecil Beaton's designs get the nod here as well, if only perhaps in their European origin, and the deep, appropriately moody nineteenth century shadows with which they are lit and photographed.

However, as visually sumptuous cinematic recreations of a vanished aristocratic world--each version has much to savor, and should be taken in tandem.

How can one possibly turn Tolstoy's novel into a "short" film? Even at 139 minutes in the uncut Korda version so much must be lost. What we end up, sad to say, is a first-rate melodrama without the psychological subtleties of the book. But that's the bad news. On the plus side, we have the sort of lavish the sky's-the-limit big, big, bigger budget production that only the Hungarian Alex Korda could have produced a few years after the world war on the sound stages of London --sets by the Russian Andreiev, costumes by the English Cecil Beaton; deep-focus photography and lighting by the French Henri Alekan ("Belle et Bete"), and music by the English composer Constant Lambert. Technically, this film contains some of the best B&W work ever done in Britian. Perhaps the greatest fault of the film is in the style of the acting. Vivian Leigh is a great beauty, very aristocratic, very British in her reserve, but when she falls in love with Vronsky she seems constitutionally incapable of the unbridled passion that Garbo brings to the role. Ralph Richardson, however, is perfect --far superior to Basil Rathbone. Richardson displays all the rigidity of Anna's husband; his enormous pride and wounded vanity; his total incapacity to understand his wife's heart. Needless to say, Kieron Moore as Vronsky tries very hard, looks wonderful in costumes, but he seems more a West-End juvenile than the great aristocrat and officer that Tolstoy depicts. Laurence Olivier would have been a perfect Vronsky. Why Korda chose not to cast him beside his wife is a mystery.

While certainly the vanities and indiscretions of upper crust Russia is examined by Tolstoy and it has been some time since I have read the lengthy novel, this version is certainly more memorable and effective than the Garbo version. I do agree with an earlier review in that Garbo herself, perhaps a bit too self-possessed and headstrong, could never represent the character of Anna, a woman carried away on passion, lust and impending tragedy.

Vivien Leigh is stunning in her facial expressions and vulnerable, almost exotic appearance, as we see her in a black gown, contrasted dramatically with other women who blend in the background to obscurity. The gowns and architecture of the era, the stark coldness and added texture of snowflakes, as a bas-relief to the portrait of Anna. Her close-ups particularly as she is in the train station in winter, foreshadowing her eventual fate.

Overall a beautiful film which is well worth viewing. Leigh is beautiful and tragic. 8/10.

Count Tolstoy's massive novels, "War and Peace," and "Anna Karenina" are personally quite challenging.

Here are breathtakingly crafted literary works in a spiritual context of unconstructive energy. It's quite easy to become as entranced within these "worlds" as are many music lovers within the skewed terrain of Wagner's Valhalla and Nibelungens.

Tolstoy's words pull in the reader almost hypnotically as he spins his titanic, subtle tales of societal mores conflicting with human emotions.

Many of his characters are self-absorbed and vain, and his social environments repressive and stolid, with false values that tragically dehumanize and destroy.

So it's an ultimate challenge to attempt to separate these energetic downers from their dazzling technical counterparts.

In the case of "Anna," after stripping away the polished veneer, I find characters trying to cope with their testy emotional choices while being thwarted by inhuman societal standards.

Yet "Anna" is a favorite of filmmakers, having been done countless times, with the Garbo-Selznick version the most notable. Here Vivien Leigh gives a creditable performance of this distraught heroine, with Director Julien Duvivier joining Jean Anuith in script adaptation.

Ralph Richardson and Kieron Moore are both completely substantial, and general production values are attended to with solid professionalism.

Alas, the enactment seldom tugs heartstrings and, in fact, a strangely turgid pall seems to hang over the entire production. Condensing a 900-page novel down to 2-hour running time doesn't help matters.

As for Leigh, my feeling is that she gravitated too often to "fallen woman" roles. While she portrayed them very well, they may have failed to bring her the uplift her personality seemed to desperately seek. Hers was pretty much a career of depressingly joyless female characters, which perhaps worked not to her personal advantage.

That's another matter, though; Leigh was forever the consummate, fine actress, and her legacy is one of great artistic achievement.

This version of "Anna Karenina" remains a thoughtful, worthy attempt at a near-impossible task.

It has always struck me as a pity that whenever film versions of "Anna Karenina" are discussed it is Greta Garbo's of 1935 that excites critical attention rather than Vivien Leigh's. I suppose this is inevitable given that Garbo's is the more memorable performance, but in all other respects I find Julien Duvivier's 1948 version the finer film. It was the first one I saw and got to know really well, so much so that when I finally caught up with the Clarence Brown film I loathed it by comparison. It somehow epitomised the worst of M-G-M by being so studio bound and schmaltzy whereas Duvivier seemed to have made every effort to give his a feeling for 19th century Russian atmosphere. Andrej Andrejew's art direction had a real period sense of style and the music score by Constant Lambert with its echoes of "The Five" was a world away from the Herbert Stothart syrup. But by far the biggest plus of the 1948 version is the magisterial performance by Ralph Richardson as Karanin which stands beside his other two great roles of the same period, that of Dr Sloper in "The Heiress" and Baines the butler in "The Fallen Idol". His Karenin is not the arrogant brute of Basil Rathbone's (too close to his Murdstone in "David Copperfield" made in the same year) but a deceived husband evoking pity through his inability to be loved. Even Kieron Moore's rather colourless Vronsky scores over Frederic March's as it suggests the character's innate weakness rather than his romantic dash. If the Duvivier film has a serious flaw it is the rather prissy "upper class" delivery of dialogue by the female characters. Even Vivien Leigh's Anna suffers from this. I have a theory that the fault may lie in Duvivier as I have noticed repeatedly how directors whose native language is not English fail to control the nuances of speech when directing an English language film. Antonioni's "Blow Up" and the dialogue of Harvey Keitel in "Angelopoulos's "Ulysses Gaze" are examples. Interestingly the version recently shown on the British Carlton Films TV channel restored an additional 15 minutes to the version I had previously known, mainly early scenes that established minor characters with greater clarity. However the most significant restoration was a closing shot held considerably longer, thus giving that additional weight to the final tragedy that a really thoughtful director of Duvivier's calibre must have originally intended.

A married woman (Vivien Leigh)'s affair with a dashing young officer has tragic results.

I read the novel several years ago in all its glory, but apparently most of it failed to stick with me because watching this film felt like i was hearing the story for the first time. And with there being so many different versions of the story on film, I am surprised I had not seen one before. (Unless I forgot those, too!) This seems like it must be the definitive version. The elegance, the intrigue. This is what I picture the aristocracy to be like. I love that they engage in seances, because that is such an upper class thing to do in the late 1800s. And Vivien Leigh? The perfect casting for a lead.

When Vivien Leigh did her version of Anna Karenina for the British cinema she had the advantage of a less stringent censorship in the UK than Greta Garbo had working for MGM in the Thirties. Garbo was hemmed in by restrictions that she had to be a wronged woman, seduced and abandoned by her lover, and committing suicide to also atone for her sins.

Vivien plays a woman who knows precisely what she was doing and yet she chose to flout the male dominated society of 19th Century Russia. Like Garbo she is married to a pill of a husband and when a dashing young cavalry officer shows his attentions to her, she falls madly in love.

It's pointed out to her at least once in the film that her biggest sin is a lack of discretion. But Vivien and Kieron Moore want the whole world to know what's going on with them. Like William Randolph Hearst and Marion Davies.

MGM softened the portrait of Count Vronsky in the Garbo version by making it an eagerness to get back into the military during war that causes the breakup. Here Kieron Moore is far less noble. Not a bad person but a weak one. His mother wants him to make a more advantageous marriage and not to a woman with a bad reputation even though he's the one who gave her the bad reputation.

There's also a cop out scene filmed by MGM where Vronsky played by Fredric March expresses remorse over Anna in the end. No such scene exists in this more realistic version.

Of course Ralph Richardson as the husband Karenin is just as big a pill as Basil Rathbone was back in 1935. A man quite full of himself in his high level job in the Czar's government, he only sees how Anna's betrayal is affecting him. Richardson is almost doing a dress rehearsal for his portrayal of Dr. Sloper in next year's The Heiress.

Vivien Leigh was unfairly compared to Greta Garbo back when this came out, unfairly I think because there's only one Garbo. Vivien was a frail creature in life and that helped in a lot of her work. Anna was a frail creature herself unable to stand up to the hypocrisy and the pressure of the society around her.

In fact Anna Karenina is a story of failure. Two people fall in love, one of them trapped in a loveless marriage, and attempt to flout society and they lose. Tolstoy sees all that and records it well, but offers no solution.

Women's liberation was off the radar in old mother Russia.

This version of Tolstoy's great novel, "Anna Karenina," made in 1948, stars Vivien Leigh as the tragic Anna, Ralph Richardson as Karenin, her husband, and Kieron Moore as Vronsky.

In a distant and unhappy marriage, Anna falls in love with Vronsky and eventually lives with him openly, forced to give up her son and her reputation.

Though the director, Julien Duvivier, imbues this film with tremendous atmosphere, it still tends to be slow and uninvolving. The best thing about this version for me is Ralph Richardson, who gives a magnificent, multilayered performance. Definitely the strongest in the movie. In some scenes, Vivien Leigh, who had been quite ill, doesn't always look well. She does a good job but unlike the great Richardson, she was not director-proof. Duvivier could have given her a little more guidance. Kieron Moore's Vronsky didn't seem like someone to give up your entire world for, but after being in such a controlling marriage, his gentler nature might have been just the ticket for Anna.

The costumes are glorious as are the other production values. The atmosphere evokes the brittle, freezing weather, the dampness, and the overall grimness of Russia. Unfortunately, one doesn't connect with the characters.

An Alexander Korda production of a Tolstoy classic starring Vivien Leigh and Ralph Richardson--why is this movie so obscure? One reason might be that it certainly was, and is, compared to the two 'Anna's that Greta Garbo starred in, and it may have suffered by comparison. More likely though, is that many viewers find it hard to imagine they are watching an adaptation of a literary classic. Fewer still will find it a cinematic classic.

Compressing eight or nine hundred pages of Tolstoy into about an hour and fifty minutes (the U.S. cut) appears to have been too great a challenge for the screenwriters, editors and director. During the early part of the film we are introduced to a confusing array of characters, families, titles, and relationships that are all but impossible to absorb if one hasn't read the book. But later on when the plot is more clear to the viewer, the interest level doesn't rise a great deal. This story of forbidden love and infidelity is curiously passionless and uninvolving. Leigh, Richardson and Keiron Moore all perform well enough, but not memorably. I found the most captivating actor on screen to be Sally Ann Howes in her brief appearances as Anna's friend Kitty. The score by Constant Lambert is a good one, also. This film is only for serious fans of the principal actors or movies of that era.

I've always been Vivien Leigh's harshest critic, but I'll admit she greatly impressed me in Anna Karenina. I've seen four versions of the classic story, and this 1948 version is very good. I've been known to say Vivien Leigh plays Scarlett O'Hara in every single movie, but in this period piece drama, she's Anna Karenina for 90% of the movie. Yes, there are a few eyebrow raises and coy smiles, but they're very few. For the most part, she's a well-bred, married lady devoted to her son but overcome with her romantic feelings for another man. She's not Scarlett O'Hara, conniving to get what she wants and relying on her beauty and charm.

Ralph Richardson plays her wounded husband, and he's just as good as you'd imagine him to be. In one memorable scene, he searches through his wife's desk to find letters from her lover that would prove her infidelity. It wasn't his idea to do this, but his lawyer told him he needed concrete evidence. When he finally finds the letters, his hands start shaking. It's very effective, and it's one of the many little touches he brings to his films that show he's a classically trained actor.

The costumes, jewelry, hairstyles, and makeup are gorgeous in this movie, making Miss Leigh just as beautiful as she was in her 1939 immortal epic. Even if you don't like the story, it's worth watching this version (or the 2012 version which is even more beautiful) to give your eyes a treat. I really enjoyed it, and if a Vivien Leigh movie gets an endorsement from me, it must be good!

One of the magic things about movies is that, if one has the time, different versions of the same tale can be easily compared, making for excellent discussions with friends, particularly in a book club where five or six persons have all spent some time with Tolstoy's impulsive heroine; watchable versions started in the silent era (Garbo first making a silent version under the title "Love," and there was another curiosity turned out for the Oscar year 2012.

Vivien Leigh's Anna Karenina is a curious version with several strengths; within the time limits given, it attempts to expand the story beyond Anna and Vronsky, which the Garbo version does not, and Leigh exudes the neurotic side of Anna, while Garbo exemplifies the breathtaking beauty--is there anyone who could really be everything Tolstoy created? It's like trying to capture Emma Bovary on film! That said, with Leigh's nervous mannerisms at the fore, I kept expecting either Blanche Dubois to start attaching shades on the lighting fixtures or for Scarlett to tear down some olive drab velvet curtains, so indelibly Leigh has created two later screen heroines--it was hard to erase the impact of those potent cultural heroines.

Sir Ralph Richardson is an excellent fussy, bureaucratic Alexei, and poor Kieron Moore looks to not have a clue about much of anything. Of all four versions of Anna I've seen in the last weeks, this is the lesser, though still worth watching.

Rumor had it that Vivien Leigh was not anxious to take on the remake of "Anna Karenina" partly because she had just recovered from tuberculosis, and maybe also because the ghost of Greta Garbo was too real. But she had one film left to do for Alexander Korda, and this was it. "Anna Karenina" released in 1948, stars Leigh as the tragic Anna. The story is based on Tolstoy's novel. Anna meets a handsome colonel, Count Vronsky (Kieron Moore) and falls in love with him. The trouble is, she is married to a high-level Russian bureaucrat (Ralph Richardson) and has a son. Anna's husband is a self-absorbed politician type, somewhat cold and aloof, consumed with his image in Russian politics. He sees marriage as a "duty" something he says a few times. Anna runs away with Vronksy, a horrendous scandal at the time and probably still would be today. It all ends tragically. Comparisons between this film and the 1935 one are inevitable. While both films are respectable, I prefer Viven Leigh's performance of Anna. Perhaps it was because Leigh had her own personal demons that she made this part so amazingly real, as she would in "A Streetcar named Desire" three years later. While I admire Garbo, I did not think of her as a great actress. Too aloof in some ways to believe she would fall head over heels for Vronsky. Ralph Richardson plays his part with consummate discipline; he can only see Anna's betrayal in terms of how it effects him. Kieron Moore is harder to judge. In the first part of the movie, he isn't given much to do except show off his good looks. He does, however, get a few good scenes as the movie progresses, and plays Vronksy as a decent man but also a flawed one. If you only know the 1935 version of this film, at least be open-minded enough to give this remake a chance. For me, Viven Leigh was reason enough for me to see it.

A nearly two and a half hour snooze fest.

If you have trouble sleeping, put this on the telly.

The score is ridiculously over-dramatic. It made me tense.