Anna Karenina

Watching this movie you will see MGM at the height of its movie-making powers. The physical production is impeccable, the sets are amazing, the production design fantastic. The photography and all technical aspects are superb with the costuming and makeup being the very best that money could buy. All these aspects combine to make a very enjoyable production but the fatal flaw in this much condensed version of Tolstoy's classic is the casting. Frederic March brings no passion to the role of Vronsky and no-one could ever believe for a minute that Anna would give up her child and position for him. In fact it is even hard to believe that she would leave her husband at all given the totally magnetic performance by Basil Rathbone as Karenin. His is the most memorable character portrayal in the film and he acts the part with superb skill. Vronsky is immediately attracted to Anna as he watches her alight from a train and Garbo's face is suddenly revealed through a cloud of steam. This was quite a magical effect in the cinema as her face gradually appeared and filled the huge movie screen, but on video and a TV screen the effect is much diminished and her face appears rather large, plain and mask like. Garbo is also referred to as 'pretty' several times during the movie when 'attractive' would have been a better word. Her acting skills are beyond doubt however and by the climax one is genuinely moved when she watches the train pull out of the station and decides that life will no longer be worth living. You can almost read her mind in this scene which is photographed and scored to maximum effect and leaves an indelible impression.

I absolutely love the novel Anna Karenina, but I am extremely displeased to find out that none of the movies really focus at all on the Levin/Kitty plot. There have been numerous arguments between scholars over whether or not Tolstoy had two protagonists--Anna, and Levin. To simply gloss over such a large part of Tolstoy's novel doesn't do justice to his work. And as I don't particularly like Anna or Vronsky, I definitely won't be investing my time in watching a movie entirely about them. It's a shame that people who see the many movies made about Anna Karenina won't be getting a better view of what the novel really is like.

For many years, I know the temptation to say - it is the best adaptation of the Tolstoy novel. The motif - more than beautiful performance of Greta Garbo, proposing the right, wise, amazing Anna Karenina. And Freddie Bartholomew as the ideal Sergey. And Gyles Isham saving his too small Levin. And, sure, Basil Rathbone proposing the cold Karenin, the only for who my compassion works very bad. But the lead motif has not a name. It is the genius of Clarence Brown to propose the film who honor Tolstoy and gives the chance to Garbo to be shining scene by scene. An old adaptation for who, after recent ones, so ambitious and glamorous, could be...dusty. But see it ! And you have the great chance to meet a perfect work. Its source of perfection - a so rare grace of nuances and details.

Anna Karenina seems to have been tailor-made for Greta Garbo to play. Ms. Garbo was always cast in these types of role that demanded a great woman's presence. Leo Tolstoy's magnificent novel is adapted with the emphasis on Anna, because the massive book, it probably took a lot of skill to adapt it for the screen.

Clarence Brown, the director, was a man who was instrumental in guiding Ms. Garbo's American career in the movies. First, as a cinematographer, then as a director, Mr. Brown, obviously, got the respect and confidence of his star, as it's clearly shown in the film.

Technically, this was a film that was well crafted. In fact, after seventy years it still has a crisp look, as shown in the great DVD version of the film. The great cinematography by William Daniels shows why this genius behind the camera was one of the best in the business. The splendor of the sets and the art direction by Cedric Gibbons added a rich texture to what comes out on the screen.

As Anna, Ms. Garbo does excellent work. As a matter of fact, her style shows some restraint as she doesn't go into those large gestures to punctuate a situation on a scene. The only thing that detracts from the film is Frederic March's Vronsky. While he was one of the best actors of his time, in here he is not as effective as in the rest of his screen work. In fact, their romance could have played differently had another actor been cast as the man who conquers Anna's heart.

The other principal roles are well played by a wonderful company that MGM put together to support the star. Basil Rathbone is perfect as Karenin, the dark figure in the novel. Freddie Bartholomew, the child actor, has some lovely moments when he is seen playing opposite Ms. Garbo. In fact, those scenes show well Anna's tender side, something that is in sharp contrast with what she ends up doing, abandoning this lovely child. Reginald Owen, one of the best character actors of the era is seen as Stiva with great charm. Maureen O'Sullivan is Kitty.

"Anna Karenina" is a film that will live forever because the combination of Greta Garbo's appeal and the great director Clarence Brown that understood her so well.

Greta Garbo brings great pathos to the role of Tolstoy's tragic heroine, though it's anyone's guess why her Anna would be drawn even remotely to Frederic March's stiff, colorless Count Vronsky. Basil Rathbone, on the other hand, is all that he should be as Anna's cold, unforgiving husband and Freddie Bartholomew is quite fine as their son. It was inevitable that the complete breadth of Tolstoy's massive novel would suffer somewhat in its transfer to the screen and this is most keenly felt in the film's treatment of the secondary love story involving Kitty and Levin, which is all but discarded. Nonetheless, this MGM production, directed by Clarence Brown, is utterly involving. With the very pretty Maureen O'Sullivan as Kitty; Gyles Isham as Levin; and Reginald Owen, Constance Collier, Reginald Denny, May Robson, Ethel Griffies and Phoebe Foster.