Resurrezione

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.

based on her reputation as one of the 30s biggest bombs. Imported from Europe to be the new Garbo/Dietrich/Rainer, Sten starred in three misbegotten Hollywood films that ruined her reputation. "We Live Again" with Fredric March looks as if it could have been better. I suspect sloppy editing that ruined the continuity and tooks the guts out. The result is a gorgeous film that is choppy; the ending is rushed--signs of bad editing. Sten returned to Europe and made occasional supporting appearances in US films. Good supporting cast includes C. Aubrey Smith, Ethel Griffies, Jane Baxter, Leonid Kinskey, Sam Jaffe, and silent-screen actress, Dale Fuller.

"We Live Again" from 1934 is filled with balalaika and Russians singing. If you can tolerate that, which is endless, you can perhaps find a kernel of interest in this film, which stars Frederic March and Anna Sten.

March plays a socialist who returns to his family farm, where he preaches equality of the people and romances a servant (Sten). However, he soon is seduced by the comforts of the upper class, with no knowledge of the hurt he has left behind.

Some time later, he is ordered to do jury duty and the servant has been accused of poisoning and robbing a man.

This is not an exciting film -- in fact, it's downright boring, particularly in the beginning. I watched it to get a gander at Anna Sten, who was brought over to the states by MGM with the intent of making her into a Garbo/Dietrich. She was very beautiful as well as a good actress, but it didn't take a genius to know that sticking her in this kind of film wasn't going to endear her to the public. She would have done better in the type of lighter film that Zanuck gave the actress Annabella. She appears to have stayed in the United States after MGM dropped her, married a producer, and worked in film and television until the mid-'60s.

Normally I love Rouben Mamoulian's films, but this one was a miss.

While Anna karenina is just a story about adultery, We live again and Les Miserables is a powerful social critique of social inequality, the situation of prisons, retreat and the redemption of individuals for past failures. Frederick March was excellent in this film and in the classic based on the book by Victor Hugo. These are two very profound stories. Tolstoy was a genius

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.