Anna Karenina

I have to admit that I saw this series only once (in 1978), and my memory of it has faded somewhat. Nevertheless, I still vividly recall its vibrant reproduction of Tolstoy's masterpiece, its authentic characterizations, and its remarkable set pieces, especially given the fact that this was a television production.

Standouts include Nicola Pagett's complicated portrayal of Anna, and Robert Swann as the ambivalent Levin. The intoxicating scene of Levin and his peasants bringing in the harvest, and Anna's tragic demise are worth viewing again.

Hope the powers that be resurrect this one in the near future!

While the best film versions are the 1967 Russian and 1935 Greta Garbo films, the best overall adaptation seen so far of Tolstoy's masterpiece Anna Karenina goes to this mini-series, the only adaptation personally seen so far that doesn't have any major debits.

Visually, it is a real beauty, with some breath taking scenery and sets, opulent costume design and elegant photography with lots of handsome colour. The period detail is not quite as evocative as it is in the 1967 and 1997 (with Sophie Marceau) films, but it is still remarkably authentic for a 70s made-for-TV mini-series. The music is appropriate and hauntingly beautiful, wisely keeping itself to the background in crucial scenes to let the dialogue really register, including a rare chance of hearing glimpses of Tchaikovsky's Manfred Symphony used for a mini-series. The mini-series also has a very thought-provoking, beautifully structured and literate script, that feels and sounds like Tolstoy's writing coming to life from the pages of the novel, covering all the major events and more and with the full emotional impact and more.

The story of Anna Karenina is very faithfully adapted here, one of the most faithful treatments of any adaptation of the novel in fact. In terms of detail, the major events, the subplots, the themes and the characters are all here, and not in Cliff Notes form, this is the real deal. The long length, with the 9 hour plus duration and 10 episodes, was more than appropriate and allowed richer characterisation, more of the story (this adaptation has the most well developed Levin by far for example) and all the material to be fully expanded upon (things that a 2-4 hour film couldn't do as effectively), as was the steady and very measured pacing to allow one to get fully immersed in the atmosphere and let the many nuances of the story and text come through. Anna Karenina (1977) is beautifully directed throughout, and the characters and their situations are always interesting.

Nicola Pagett is outstanding as a particularly passionately vulnerable Anna, which is played with pitch-perfect heartfelt pathos, and Stuart Wilson blows all the Vronskys in the film adaptations out of the water in a portrayal that is much more complex than any of the portrayals in any of the film versions, where half of the cinematic Vronskys make for problematic casting. The chemistry between the two of them is very believable with no sudden transitions and it doesn't feel rushed. Eric Porter's Karenin, a role played to a consistently high level in all the adaptations even in the weaker ones, is more conflicted than most, rather than being too sympathetic or too much of a reptile, more of a man caught in situations that more expose his weaknesses than his strengths, and he plays it magnificently. Robert Swann stands out in support as an ambivalent and multi-layered Levin, in a cast where everybody comes off strongly with few if any weak links.

All in all, a superb adaptation, adapted Tolstoy rarely gets much better than this. 10/10 Bethany Cox

I just saw the mini-series and enjoyed it so much. Yes, it was filmed in the 70s so perhaps it might be dated in its production values, but in its performances and dialogue and sheer emotional highs and lows, it is far superior to any of the other Anna Kareninas I have seen. Nicola Paget was simply smashing - you might remember her as the actress who brought Elizabeth Bellamy so vividly to life in Upstairs, Downstairs. She will simply break your heart with her portrayal of Anna. And Count Vronsky is played by the dashing Stuart Wilson, who looks every bit the part of a man a woman would give up so much for. I fell in love with this actor when he played Fernando Lopez in The Pallisers, another marvelous 70s miniseries. The trio of superb performances includes Eric Porter as Anna's rigid and emotionally devastated husband, who is hiss-worthy in many scenes, yet manages to convey the emotions boiling inside of him, giving one pause to totally hate him. Eric Porter was the marvelous Soames Forsyte in the 1967 series The Forsyte Saga, simply one of the best mini-series ever presented on television. I gave this ten stars, because when I am watching a novel by Tolstoy adapted for television, I want to see the emotions of the novel brought to life, more than I care about the settings. The entire cast is excellent, with nary a badly cast role. I had rented the series, but now have ordered it so that I can watch it again, in its entirety, whenever I please.

The limitations of a late 70's BBC budget are everywhere apparent in this nonetheless absolutely captivating production. One only wishes a proper film could have been made with this same cast and script, but of course that would have probably drained the production of what makes it so spectacular - its sheer expansiveness. In its nearly 10-hour runtime, it covers practically all of the novel's myriad episodes, and the dizzying complexities of its timeless characters - Anna's at once near schizophrenia and almost magical charm and poise, Vronsky's extreme selfishness and rakish abandon, yet unquestionable honor and devotion, and Karenin's cruel, detached vindictiveness tempered by his capacity for forgiveness and tenderness. The script is so heavily in the spirit of Tolstoy's writings that quotations from the original novel do not stick out like a sore thumb, as they do in Tom Stoppard's shockingly amateurish script for the Keira Knightley adaptation, but are rather an organic fabric of this labyrinthine and captivating piece. Perhaps hindsight drives this perception given Ms. Pagett's unfortunate mental breakdown subsequent to this production, but she is so effortlessly a living, breathing, enchanting creature suffering from truly intractable emotional and existential distress that it makes the knowledge of her end, which rather intentionally pervades the novel even without its cultural resonance, lend an intense poignance to the film. She is also every bit as beautiful as Anna should be. Supporting characters, from Oblonsky to Betsy (in particular the flippant Countess, whose true, though tested, devotion to Anna is richly filled in here) are handled spectacularly well. But the production in many ways belongs to Stuart Wilson's Vronsky, who manages to convey precisely what makes Vronsky uniquely appealing to a woman of depth - he is a melancholic, inspired, fiery, Byronic hero, and not just a preening pretty face with all of his hair (Aaron Taylor-Johnson, I sadly look at you). Those who were impatient with the Levin twin-plot in the novel will be distressed to see it nearly intact in this version, but Levin is refreshingly well-played and spirited, so that his scenes have a life to them typically denied the almost perfunctory inclusion of the character in most adaptations that do him the service of not cutting him. Kitty is also incredibly beautiful, age appropriate, and charming, so her scenes, while never quite living up to Anna's, prove a welcome distraction.

After recently reading and falling in love with the book, I started doing research into the filmed adaptations of the novel. I first watched the BBC adaptation from 2000, which impressed me, but I was somewhat disappointed by the amount of editing done to the story.

I, therefore, picked up this version with great anticipation, because it is much longer (10 hours) and I was hoping would therefore be a more fully realized version of the story.

Unfortunately, I barely made it through the first hour before turning it off and giving up on it.

The whole production felt too staged and unnatural for my taste. The actors looked like English 'thespians' dressed up in stock period costumes rather than Russian aristocrats. And they all more or less spoke in the same loud and clear stage voice making the conversations feel less intimate than I would have liked.

Camera-work and directing was mostly just like that of a noontime soap opera.

I'm sure that in 1977 this was perfectly acceptable, but nowadays, it is just not good enough to spend time watching. It certainly does no justice to what is often considered one of the greatest novels ever written.

If you are looking for a filmed adaptation of this story, stick with the more recent version from 2000. While it is a somewhat edited down version of the story, it is a much superior product that does a far better job of fully capturing the richness of Tolstoy's novel.