Onegin

Fine performances highlight `Onegin,' a generally interesting version of Pushkin's complex love story whose contemporary significance shines through the tortured souls of its two main characters. Ralph Fiennes stars in the title role as a 19th Century Russian aristocrat who, like many similar figures in Russian literature of that time, suffers from the attenuating effects of enervation and ennui. Though the recipient of vast sums of wealth and property at the death of his uncle, Onegin finds no meaning or solace in life as he lives it. He is as bored by the stifling superficiality of the privileged elite languishing in splendor in the fancy halls and glittering ballrooms of cosmopolitan St. Petersburg as he is by the domestic dreariness of the provincials residing in the bucolic countryside where one of his uncle's vast estates is located. In the latter setting, while visiting Vladimir - a poet he has recently befriended - Onegin becomes drawn to Tatyana the beautiful younger sister of the man's fiancé. Both Onegin and Tatyana reflect a remarkably modern sensibility in their temperaments. For instance, though the attraction between the two is a mutual one, it is Tatyana who makes the first move, pouring out her unbridled love for this newcomer in a letter which Onegin politely rejects because he fears the deadening of the soul that he believes will inevitably accompany marriage and fidelity. One can't get much more contemporary in tone than these two characters, one stepping well out of the accustomed bounds accorded her sex in affairs of romance and the other reflecting the fear of commitment that is such a staple of modern times. Yet, fate plays its cruelest hand at the end, as Onegin finds himself, years later, trapped in an ironic role reversal as the now-married Tatyana is forced to rebuff the advances of the obsessed, lovelorn man whom she still admits to loving. As in many bleak works of Russian literature, the character is forced to live out his existence in a hell of his own making, suffering the torment of regret without end.

The personal drama unfolds against the fascinating backdrop of the subtly changing society of 19th Century Russia, a country that, then and now, has seemed to be always several centuries behind its European neighbors in its moves towards liberalization in the areas of basic human and civil rights. We see clearly the struggle between the empty ritualism and entrenched barbarism of the past, as reflected in the continuing institution of serfdom and in gun duels fought over affairs of honor, and the enlightened philosophy of the coming world, as many young aristocrats begin to champion both the abolition of serfdom and the growing acceptance of love as the foundation of marriage. Indeed, the two young lovers cannot extricate themselves from the entanglements that often accompany a time unsure of its traditions. Onegin, for all his talk about freeing his serfs, is himself forced to participate in a duel that both horrifies and disgusts him. And Tatyana, for all her comments about only marrying a man she loves, succumbs to the pressure of tradition, ultimately agreeing to a marriage based on class, money and position. Here are two people caught in a world not yet ready for them, who are forced to settle for the compromises their society has deemed fit and proper.

This well-acted, well-written and well-directed film may seem a bit slow at times, but the intelligence of the dialogue, the subtle underplaying of the cast and the quiet beauty of much of the direction lead us into a strange world of the past that still has resonance and relevance for the world of today.

[Note: the following comments were written after a preview screening for the film 'Onegin', Tuesday 8th October 1998 in Wimbledon, London. The film was still a 'work in progress', with some cleaning up to be done on the sound track and most of the scene transitions somewhat shoddy. The film's title was not 'Eugene Onegin', but simply 'Onegin'.]

The idea of an adaptation of a 19th century Russian novel about unrequited love will clearly not appeal to everyone, especially given the considerable number of period dramas that have come before it. However, 'Onegin' distinguishes itself both by its sparkling script, its stunning locations and by the outstanding efforts of both director and cast.

As an extremely critical film viewer, no-one was more surprised than I that when facing an audience response sheet for the film I could not think of a single scene I did not enjoy whilst running out of space to list all the scenes that I loved!

The cast, headed by Ralph Fiennes (Onegin) and Liv Tyler (Tatiana), acquit themselves admirably and I will be very disappointed if one or both do not receive Oscar nominations for their performances. Toby Stephens (Lensky), in one of the key supporting roles, is equally superb, especially when being played off as the emotional loose cannon to Fiennes' laconic and cynical Onegin.

The locations - especially the millpond at which some of the film's key scenes take place - are stunningly shot, and the camerawork in general is a cut above most films. The directors decision to let sound and vision take upon some of the personality of the central characters at key moments only serves to underline the emotional content of the film.

As an example, when Tatiana writes her letter to Onegin, the camera views what she writes only in close up - single words, giving the viewer a sense of the obsession and passion that is working in her. As she writes, her hands become more and more stained with ink and eventually we see her trying to wipe the ink from her hands as if she is stained with guilt.

As I intimated before, this is not a film for all people. There is little action, and most of the story rests upon the simple interaction between Onegin, Tatiana and Lensky. But it builds with grim inevitability to an emotional climax which left me strangely delighted that there are still film makers out there who can produce truly great movies.

The film it most reminded me of was 'Remains of the Day', but whilst I found that to be labored and frustrating (I almost wished that the central characters were in the room so I could slap them for being so foolish), the characters and situations in 'Onegin' are tragically believable. I found myself sympathizing with all three of the central characters, for entirely different reasons.

I cannot recommend this film highly enough to anyone who has ever enjoyed a period drama, a nineteenth century novel or suffered through unrequited love. Martha Fiennes is a director worth keeping an eye on.

I was impressed so much by Onegin. Ralph Fiennes made me change my opinion about Onegin as person. When I read Onegin (at school) I could not pardon him for all the Tatiana's suffering, in my mind he was a devil, cynique and even cruel. In Ralph's performance I saw all the mystery of this person (Ralphs mystery...). in his eyes - parfois si impenetrables, si indifferents, soudain l'amour qui luit, la lumiere douce, un regard abandonne: Ralphs smile. Now when I think of Onegin I see Fiennes - a man in black bolivar, walking alone on Moika's embankment, tender and blessed heart behind cold eyes.

This is a very good film overall. Having grown up in Russia and being, as we would say here, `a great Pushkin's fan' ;-), I was caught between curiosity and caution when deciding whether I should even rent this film. Then I saw Ralph Fiennes name and thought that it could not be all that bad.so curiosity won. I was pleasantly surprised that the film is fairly faithful to the original. Not completely, of course, but when I think about horrible mutilations other filmmakers perform on marvelous works of literature, I'm very grateful that the producers of `Onegin' read the poem very well and chose scenes and changed some of them with care. I won't talk a lot about beauty of scenes in the film: it's a pleasure to watch. Here are some of the things I didn't like. First of all I was a little disappointed by the film's interiors. Several of them look very natural (some of the room's in Larin's and Onegin's houses). Others (like Petersburg palaces) more than anything resemble theatrical decorations. I don't think this was intentional, since the overall scenery is very realistic. Another objection is the lovemaking scene. I don't think it belongs or was needed at all. Was it just a due paid to modern filmmaking? Why not do Tatyana's dream instead (this is a meaningful symbolic scene in the poem, not filming it could hardly be an accidental decision, I would love to know what was the reason)? The third, kind of big problem is that married Tatyana is not clearly portrayed as the queen of Petersburg's society. This detail is very important for understanding of Onegin's character: a tragic figure who can only exist within the laws and decorations of high society - the very society he despises more than anything else. Tatyana, the queen of this society, a complete part of it and yet completely not involved with it, comfortably within and yet far above the chattering crowd - that very likely is the only thing Onegin can love. Unfortunately the question `am I noble enough for you now?' which Tatyana throws at Onegin during the climax scene of the film, does not fully convey that understanding and is an oversimplification compared to the speech that Pushkin's Tatyana gives to her fallen and still loved hero.

This is a truly wonderful film. It is an adaptation of the 19th century romantic poem by Alexander Pushkin about the tragic love affair between Evgeny Onegin (Ralph Fiennes) and Tatyana Larina (Liv Tyler). Evgeny has inherited his uncle's provincial estate and goes to the country to put his affairs in order. While there, he befriends Vladimir (Toby Stevens) who introduces him to Tatyana, the sister of his fiancé. Tatyana falls madly in love with Evgeny, but he brutally rejects her and leaves to return to St. Petersburg. Upon returning years later to find her married, his regrets ignite into a passionate and obsessive love for her.

There has been some criticism of the fact that this film was produced by Ralph Fiennes to give a project to his sister Martha (director) and brother Magnus (original music). Well, if this is the high quality wrought from Fiennes nepotism, we need more such collaborations.

In her feature film directorial debut, Martha Fiennes gives us outstanding imagery, precise period renderings, innovative camera work, and dramatic lighting. The locations, sets, costumes and props were fabulous. I especially loved the furniture. The scenes on the dock by the mill in the fog were eerie and chilling. One shot of Liv Tyler in a rowboat, shot through out-of-focus reeds in the foreground, was pure art. The extreme close-up of the inking of the love letter added to the power of the emotions being written. Remi Adefarasin (‘Elizabeth') added wondrous cinematography to the list of filmmaking kudos.

Ralph Fiennes delivers another superb performance as Evgeny. In the early scenes, he is cavalier, self absorbed, and arrogant to the point of being despicable. His stoical dismissal of Tatyana was ice cold. In the later scenes, he delivers a character so pathetically tormented by love that he wins back our sympathies.

This is by far the best performance I have seen by Liv Tyler. She was poised, graceful and lovely, and gave an extremely dignified performance. With this role, she has proven that she can move beyond the troubled teen type and play a character with substance.

This is intelligent and inspired filmmaking. I rated it a 9/10. The pacing is deliberate, so action junkies will want to pass on this film. However, for those who can savor a compelling love story with splendid imagery, this film should not be missed.