Guerre et Paix

Andrew Davies' latest BBC production, War & Peace, is an absolutely splendid TV adaptation of the epic novel.

First things first: do not compare a six hour adaptation to the book. Of course there can not be the same level of detail either in character development or plot. This adaptation should be taken on its own merits.

In my option, the outstanding components of this version are:

1. Paul Dano is well suited as Pierre, particularly in his well- practised range (from meek and mild to a raging temper) as seen in, to name one example, There Will Be Blood.

2. The cinematography is stunning. There are beautiful close-ups of couples dancing, for instance, sprawling vistas and an impressive symmetry to various shots.

3. The score is impressive in its variation and poignancy.

4. The costumes are, as you would expect, incredible.

I'm looking forward to seeing the remaining three episodes!

I have read some of the reviews, and seen previous versions so looked forward to this with both hope and trepidation. I loved Anthony Hopkins in the 70s as Pierre, Sergay Bondachuk in the Russian version and Henry Fonda earlier than that. The character is one of my all time favourites, so it took me a while to take to Paul Dano, but once I had, I found it to be a sensitive performance that had its own merits, and deserves praise. Jim Broadbent, Ade Edmondson and the rest of the cast also make it worthy of your time.

All I can say is enjoy the show, lap up the scenery, wallow in the wonderful characters and costumes, charge in your minds eye to battle and dance at the balls. Visit Old St Petersburg without leaving your armchair and be entertained. The book has too much to ever do justice to, (unless perhaps Peter Jackson took it under his wing).

What i like about this adaptation is that it gives the younger audience the chance to know why war and peace is one of the most important stories written so far. It is already known that most of the young population doesn't like to read books especially when its a long ones.I like TV series and films for the fact they can deliver a story similar to a book and some times even better.No place to argue that the screen is taking over now so why don't use it to tell famous and good story .So far i've seen 5 episodes and they are all made very well , directors and actors job is just awesome , i strongly recommend this adaptation to everyone!

Anybody who even as much attempts to adapt Leo Tolstoy's magnum opus 'War and Peace' deserves at least a pat on the back for trying, regardless of how successful it is in doing so or not. The novel is one of the greatest there is, but because of the enormous length (one of the longest novels I've ever read, and it was admittedly not the easiest to immediately get gripped at first), very rich story and dialogues, and complex characterisations and themes it is also one of the most difficult to adapt.

Of the major versions, the best version is the 1972 mini-series with Anthony Hopkins, not only an ideal adaptation of the book and as faithful as one could get but also brilliant in its own right, one of the best the BBC ever produced. The 1966 Russian one directed by Sergei Bondarchuk, while not as accessible, is a close second, a towering achievement and contains the best battle and ballroom scenes of all the War and Peace adaptations. The 1956 King Vidor film has a number of good things, like the production values, the music score, Audrey Hepburn and some of the supporting cast but the sound quality and two male leads are very problematic and the story is not as riveting as it could have been. Faring least is the 2007 adaptation with Clemence Posey as Natasha, beautiful production values and some impressive supporting performances but sunk by the problematic performances of the three leading characters, awkward and underwritten script-writing and bland storytelling.

This latest offering from 2016 courtesy of BBC is not as good as the 1972 mini-series or the Sergei Bondarchuk, but is far more successful than the 1956 film and 2007 adaptation. It isn't one hundred percent flawless, agree with Andrew Davies himself that the mini-series could have been two episodes longer as the final episode did feel a little rushed and Helene's story too hastily and conveniently wrapped up. Although the production values are wonderful on the whole, some of the costumes don't fit as well with the period and are not as lavish as the rest and some of the make-up is 21st century-ish.

However, considering that adapting 'War and Peace' is a mammoth task and virtually impossible to be word for word, detail for detail this does very well as an adaptation. It is condensed and not one hundred percent faithful, but the heart and soul of the book is there and while focusing predominantly on the relationships between the characters and the characterisations it is very intelligently written and everything feels coherent and emotionally investible. Even if the Sergei Bondarchuk film has more beautiful ballroom scenes and more powerful war scenes, this adaptation hardly underwhelms in either.

'War and Peace' (2016) stands brilliantly on its own, and shouldn't be marked down solely for it not being a completely faithful adaptation, that is not fair on the adaptation as they are two different mediums and deserve to be treated as such. It is wonderfully made for starters. The photography is some of the most beautiful personally seen all year on television, almost poetic and heart-breaking in its beauty (episode 3 is particularly striking), the settings, interiors and period detail is sumptuous in every sense and it's always special when scenery is like a character all of its own and the Russian landscapes is one of the greatest examples of that, as well as looking exquisite, seen anywhere on film or television not just this year but possibly ever.

Another standout is the music score, words cannot describe how amazing it is. Not only is it so dynamic with every scene, with the haunting choirs, chilling ambiance, poetic nuance and rousing bombast even enhancing the impact, but it serves as an amazing score on its own and one of the best music scores for television this year as well as worthy of its very own soundtrack album. The script is very literate and intelligent, the characterisation meaty and the dialogue always flowing beautifully. The storytelling throughout is engrossing with a lot packed in but elaborated upon enough to make it fascinating and easy to follow.

Performances are top-notch, regardless of any reservations as to whether certain actors are right physically. Paul Dano's sensitive and multi-faceted portrayal Pierre is one of the most successful ones of all 'War and Peace' adaptations, and is one of his best overall performances. Wasn't sure about Lily James at first, but as the character grows James grows too and becomes enchanting. James Norton is a handsome, commanding and tragic Andrei. In support, standouts are an outstanding Jessie Buckley, Tuppence Middleton as a Helene that's somewhat both a villain and a victim and Jim Broadbent's incredibly powerful and affecting Bollonsky (especially his breakdown).

Overall, a very successful adaptation of 'War and Peace'. 9/10 Bethany Cox

The negative comments here, which I read after watching the miniseries, led me to two things: First, re-read the book, which I hadn't done in ages. Second, I re-watched the Bondarchuk version, which I'd seen way back then when it was first theatrically released. I have to say that all I remembered was simply its length and the scope of the war scenes as it had been widely impressed on viewers at the time that the Soviet army had actually re-enacted them with the blessing of the Soviet state, a propaganda coup in those Cold War times. Yet I seem to remember it as a bit of a bore.

Frankly, people, those who are so negative about this miniseries seem to have watched something else altogether different or need go back and reread the book (if they ever did) and rewatch the Bondarchuk version (ditto). Unlike their claims, it's so happens that the miniseries is actually quite close to the book and a very honorable rendition of Tolstoy's work. Certainly, it doesn't portray Tolstoy's lengthy disquisitions on history and so on, obviously because they are not cinematographic. As to casting, people seem to forget that Bondarchuk, then in his forties, cast himself in the role of Pierre-and he didn't happen to be a very good actor, to boot! Fonda was clearly badly cast, but so was Bondarchuk with the aggravating circumstances that in his case it comes across as a vanity thing. This round goes to Dano, who is an excellent actor and way closer in age to the character.

The other role that seems to have particularly grated on people is Natasha. But in Bondarchuk's film, the role went to a ballet dancer, with no acting experience except for the artificial miming required in the 19th century classic ballets. And this shows bigly, as she plays Natasha as though she were dancing the role! As a former dancer who has also been trained in acting, I can vouch for the differences between the two performance genres and how an unpondered transfer of techniques used in one don't necessarily transfer well to the other. Watching her enact Natasha is excruciating as her gesturing, posturing, and body movement, very obviously coming from ballet miming conventions, are quite artificial and stilted. She simply looks like she strayed into the series from a performance of Swan Lake. Lily James is a perfectly good actress and this round goes to her as well.

All in all, while I can't speak of all the versions out there since I've only seen Hepburn's, Bondarchuk's, and this miniseries, I think this the best of what I know. And I appreciate it greatly for its cohesiveness, faithfulness to the original, excellent production values, acting, and overall quality.