Résurrection

This emotionally powerful, beautifully produced picture gives a delicious flavour of Tolstoy's great novel. Wisely this production gives the essence of the story rather than trying to squeeze all 900 pages into ninety minutes.

Watching this you realise that it was Tolstoy who was responsible for the storylines of about fifty percent of all pre-code movies. All those 'poor girl gets seduced then abandoned by posh boy' movies can trace their roots back to this. This however has a real twist that you'll never see coming. This also has a lot more depth to it than a simple 'boy meets girl and the world is a cruel, unjust place' picture.

What makes this different was this was set in Czarist Russia just twenty years after most of the population were freed from slavery. What made this so incredibly controversial in Russia wasn't that a nobleman had his wicked way with a peasant but the incomprehensible idea that a nobleman could feel remorse for what he'd done. OK, the peasants were free now but to treat them like actual people was a crazy idea!

By adapting a huge novel to a ninety minute film means that a lot of the back story and Tolstoy's philosophical points don't make the final edit. Also being made after the implementation of the 1934 censorship rules, crucial parts of the story: her sexual assault, her fall into prostitution and his dissolute lifestyle of drink and orgies now is conveyed by using the signalling codes of the time. Despite all these restrictions however it's still a superbly entertaining, intelligent and enjoyable film.

As you'd expect from Rouben Mamoulian, it looks incredible and the acting is spot on - although a little over-dramatic at times - but show me a historical drama where it's not. Tolstoy's story and how Mamoulian tells it really pulls you in. It paints a shocking yet stunning picture of Aleksander III's unjust Russia. It touches on Tolstoy's ethics, his fight for justice and even on his 'Georgist' politics (free enterprise, free trade). Probably because it's set in Russia, some Ill-informed commentators have said this preaches socialism and is anti-capitalist. It's the complete opposite! This novel says how capitalism could replace feudalism. I think some people are mixing up Trotsky with Tolstoy.

Anyway, back to the movie.... Fredric March puts in his usual reliable and likeable performance and Anna Sten is actually pretty decent. She's no Bette Davis but she doesn't deserve the terrible reputation she gained - I think people simply didn't like her because Goldwyn touted her as his own Garbo but she wasn't the audience's beloved Garbo. If you enjoy 1930s cinema, this is one of the best.

I have recently discovered the actor Fredric March, and so have been watching many of his movies. I must say, I thought it would be a good one, since Rouben Mamoulian directed it. I was right; this is a beautifully filmed movie. It is poetic, visual art. I personally did not find the editing choppy at all. I felt the story was a good one, and the actors all well chosen. Anna Sten was a beautiful woman, and a very good actress in this film, the only film I have seen her in so far. She was very convincing as a peasant girl; innocent,naive, childlike. She and Fredric March did very well together. I thought Fredric March was georgous in this film, young and handsome,dashing in those Russian military uniforms and long Russian shirts.

Loved his little mustashe too,but I did not like the beard in the end of the film. My favorite scenes were of Anna and Fredric together when young lovers; when chasing her through the field and climbing the tree, when they were at the Easter church service, when he comes to see her at her bedroom window... the scene in the conservatory was well done. But how sad to see that Fredric's military life has hardened him and made him a selfish cad. Thankfully, unlike his character in "Anna Karenina", he realizes his sin and makes his wrongs right. I appreciate the moral uprightness Fredric achieves by the end of the film. In summary, this is a beautiful film and I highly recommend it.

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.

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.