Anna Karenina

Now, perhaps I'm out of my element writing a review for "Anna Karenina" without having read the book, but I shall do so regardless. Many criticised this film because it did not follow the book, or omitted one thing or another. That is all well and good, but what feature-length film *can* capture the entire scope of a novel the size of "Anna Karenina"? I watched the older version with Greta Garbo and--though I cannot imagine why--it never truly caught my attention. This version, however, captured me from the start. And I am usually the first one to complain about what is wrong with a remake in comparison to the old version. A paradox, indeed.

This film first caught my eye because of Sophie Marceau. I admire her immensely as an actress, having seen her in several films, both French and English. Then, I recognised Bernard Rose as the director of "Immortal Beloved", a film I had enjoyed some months before, mostly due to a magnificent performance by Gary Oldman, some of the most glorious music caught on film.

The music, I can probably cite as one of the main reasons I loved this film. I can think of no better love theme for a doomed romance like that of Anna and Vronsky, than the first movement of Tchaikovsky's Sixth Symphony. The use of "Swan Lake" at various points was also wonderful, and the interplay during the scene at the ballet held me mesmerised. Vronsky speaks of Anna being trapped in her marriage as the Prince seeks to capture the Swan Queen. Perhaps I'm just rambling, but somehow that connected.

On the whole, the performances were good. Sophie Marceau was perfectly believable as Anna, and some of her scenes sent chills down my spine, though my favourite performance of hers still has to be "Firelight". Sean Bean had me worried for a few seconds, with a mannered reading or two, but improved quickly as the film progressed. Another reviewer pointed out that Vronsky was meant to be a shallower character than Anna, and now that I think back on it, I believe that is very true, and that Sean Bean's performance reflected this superficiality. Mia Kirshner was adequate--I didn't particularly care for her--but Alfred Molina and James Fox both gave fine performances (a standout for me was when Anna wrote Karenin from Italy and Karenin wavered before refusing to let her see Sergei).

However, equally on par with the actors, was the setting. Very few films, I have to admit, can look *so* beautiful. Especially the ballroom scene, with the seemingly neverending hallway of gilded doors, the location photography was spectacular. The costumes were stunning, and the cinematography made even snow seem alive. Even if you do not care for the story or the acting, this is a film to watch for visuals.

Thus, I believe that this film deserves far more credit than it received. I, personally, loved it for varied reasons, but I have to admit that what truly captured me was the way Bernard Rose can take an average script and transform it into a beautiful film using visuals and music. Very few directors take the time to put music and image together if they use classical scores (my favourites would be David Lean and John Boorman), and I believe Bernard Rose should be watched in the future. I should love to see what he would do with a film set in late 19th century Italy, when opera was at its height!

***1/2 out of ****

This was surprisingly good. I'm not that much a fan of the Romance genre, if truth be told, but I'll make an exception for this one. The film is carefully crafted. Every emotion, every dialogue enhanced the overall tone of the film, slowly but surely escalating in its momentum up to its tragic climax.

Sophie Marceau was brilliant. As was Sean Bean. I wasn't quite sure if they would be able to possess the kind of chemistry needed to pull this off, if truth be told, considering how they (in my opinion) seem to be of different temperament artistically (Sophie being more sensitive as seen in Braveheart and Marquis, while Bean is more explosive). Nevertheless, it worked out fine although, ironically, their relationship seem to be more believable whenever they fell out of odds with each other. :)

Which is entirely to be expected with a novel the size and complexity, I'm told, of Leo Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina", which I have not read.

I will blushingly admit that I first viewed this film mostly because of Sean Bean's presence. I found him a superb actor in the Lord of the Rings, and hoped to find more in his other works.

Truthfully, his portrayal of Vronsky feels somewhat light in this film; I attribute this to three factors: the severe compression of the novel (as happens with all film adaptations), the actual nature of the character itself, and the slightly boring task of playing mostly passion. Unlike other viewers, I found it very difficult to sympathize with Vronsky, and his repentance hollow. My heart melted somewhat, though, during his flashback to Karenina's corpse at the railway, and his brimming eyes as the train pulled away. Redeemed slightly at the very last moment.

Sophie Marceau is stunning as Anna Karenina; I found her enchanting from the start. Marceau plays the title lady with dignity, elegance, and grace; in her more intimate and emotional moments, she portrays Karenina's motherly and passionate sides with skill.

The inevitable flaws of adaptation show through in this film; there are numerous location changes, and multiple "quick" passages of time. Every event feels strung together by a thread, which they likely are, chosen for their narrative value. Yet it doesn't work, as the overall result lacks a palatable sense of cohesion. The love story of Karenina and Vronsky feels chopped and rushed, as does the tale of Levin and his Kitty -- which is too bad, since they are both the anchor narratives. The contrast of the two, however, plays well, and reminds me of the romances in Michael Ondaatje's "English Patient" (I'm well aware Tolstory precedes Ondaatje).

The greatest features of "Anna Karenina" lie in the atmosphere. Despite the out-of-place original accents of the actors, Russian is spoken skilfully, and the chosen music is beautiful and appropriately evocative of an older, grander time. and the lovely landscapes of Russia play a beautiful role in the background. The costumes and sets are breathtaking; the highlight is surely the ballroom scene, when all are attired for an evening "out" and Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake Waltz is playing.

While an excellent effort, "Anna Karenina" eventually feels like what it is: a cinematic adaptation of a novel.

I'd give it a 8 out of 10.

According to an earlier review, this movie is supposed to be "just plan awful." The writer probably meant "plain" instead of "plan," and that misspelling may be an indication of the quality of the review.

There is much to be said for the viewpoint that this film version of Tolstoy's novel, starring Sophie Marceau, must certainly be one of the greatest versions ever produced.

Tolstoy himself lived to see just the beginning of the era of the motion picture and was said to have been fascinated by the possibilities the new medium presented. If so, he would no doubt have been quite astonished at the beauty and the extraordinary quality of this rendition of his story about Anna Karenina. The production values are among the highest there could possibly be. The costumes, the cinematography, and the sets – unlike earlier versions, the film was shot on location in St. Petersburg and elsewhere in Russia – are at such a remarkable level that the action almost does appear to be really taking place in the Czarist period at the end of the nineteenth century.

As for Sophie Marceau's mild French accent – which the above-mentioned reviewer found so irritating – it is quite likely that many upper-classes Russians of the period actually did speak with a French accent. It was not Russian but French that was the dominant language among the Russian nobility and aristocracy of the time – for some, French was in fact their native language, since many of them never learned to speak Russian at all, except perhaps a few words and phrases they could use to communicate with the servants.

What is perhaps most remarkable of all in this film is the utterly believable way that the behavior of the of characters is presented. Their motives are suggested with great subtlety, not in the somewhat simplistic tones of the (nevertheless still magnificent) MGM version of the film that starred Greta Garbo seventy years ago. Anna's husband is not a monster, for example, in this new version, but a rather pathetic, right-wing government bureaucrat with obsessively strict moral values. Moreover, the portrayal of Anna's behavior throughout the film, and especially in the final scenes, is a masterpiece of sympathetic psychological insight and understanding.

This film is a – for the time being, anyway – neglected classic.

Along with War and Peace, Anna Karenina is one of the greatest Russian novels and one of the greats of 19th century literature, the story is heart-breaking and intense and the characters compelling. Anna Karenina has often been filmed, and of the film versions the 1967 Russian and 1935 Greta Garbo films fare the best and the 2012 Joe Wright-directed version the weakest. This 1997 adaptation from Bernard Rose (Paperhouse, Immortal Beloved, Candyman) has a good amount to like but is one of the weaker adaptations.

Visually, the film looks absolutely stunning and along with the 1967 Russian film it is one of the most evocative adaptations period detail-wise. Although some of the editing is choppy, the cinematography is ravishing and the costumes and sets are some of the most beautiful and evocative of any adaptation of Anna Karenina, especially in the opulent ballroom scene and the gorgeous wintry landscapes. The Tchaikovsky-laden music score makes for an aural feast and couldn't have fitted more perfectly.

Three performances are good. Coming off best is Alfred Molina, who brings authority and many layers to Levin, wish more was done with developing the character more in terms of writing but at least the film included the character and his subplot with Kitty. James Fox is a ruthlessly cold and haunting Karenin, the character played consistently well in all the Anna Karenina adaptations even in the not-so-good ones. Sean Bean is a handsome Vronsky, but brings a steely intensity to the role that stops the character from being wooden or tragic, rightfully avoiding the dashing heroic figure stereotype.

Sophie Marceau however I found miscast as Anna, she looks splendid but is pretty vacuous and lacking in passion. Her chemistry with Bean convinces in the latter and more turbulent parts of the relationship but dull in the early parts. Mia Kirschner is also rather too modern and lightweight for Kitty. This version of Anna Karenina is a visual and aural stunner with a few impressive performances, but is one of the least successful and interesting versions in terms of script and how the story is told.

The dialogue doesn't always flow naturally, and feels very dry in tone and with little depth and substance, and the narration was rather unnecessary. Rose's direction shows terrific technical assurance but lacks the same kind of momentum in telling the story. It's the story where the film most falls down, feeling far too short and far too rushed, with about half of the story (or so it feels) being told but all in Cliff Notes version, and it even feels like more of the film was filmed but cut due to studio interference. Neither of the romances are dealt with well, Anna and Vronsky's is too rushed and the very incomplete-feeling one between Levin and Kitty sometimes really slows down the film.

Overall, not a bad version but a less than ideal one, as an adaptation and as a film on its own. 5/10 Bethany Cox