Anna Karenine

Back in the day this silent version of Anna Karenina was all the rage because in that year that talkies made their debut, the film was part of the famous Greta Garbo/John Gilbert group that was passionately daring for its time. That scene where Gilbert after helping a lady in distress in the snowy Russian winter, when they get to shelter and she takes off the hoodie on her parka and Gilbert does a triple take at Garbo's beauty is still one of the best love at first sight scenes in the history of cinema.

The passionate sparks from Garbo and Gilbert still thrill many. But ninety years after Tolstoy's novel got the full MGM tratment we can get real critical over the happy ending the film got. There was a more realistic ending apparently filmed for foreign markets. But I can only critique what I see.

Still for me the best version of Anna Karenina was the one Vivien Leigh did in 1948 which was closest to Tolstoy's work. The sound remake that Garbo did with Fredric March as Count Vronsky is better than this one. The ending there is tragic, but there is a postscript softening of Vronsky's character.

Fans of Greta Garbo and John Gilbert should still like this. But Tolstoy purists will be disappointed.

When lots of classic buffs discuss Garbo's portrayal of Anna Karenina, they most often refer to the sound version directed by Clarence Brown in 1935. And they are right since the sound version with Greta Garbo and Fredric March is the supreme adaptation of Tolstoy's novel during the silver screen's heyday. That is the movie, which despite its 75th birthday is still highly captivating, and thanks to Greta Garbo, the story of Tolstoy's heroine touches the depths of viewers' hearts. However, whilst developing the knowledge of Garbo's unique presence on screen and her outstanding yet short career, I was deeply touched by seeing the silent production LOVE directed by Edmund Goulding, the man who later directed one of Garbo's most popular movies, GRAND HOTEL. Although the movie LOVE has been quite ignored by many viewers, even by Greta Garbo fans, it is very much worth attention as a pleasant silent film.

The reason why I liked the movie does not lie in its source novel. As a matter of fact, there are a number of serious liberties taken when applied to content, plots and historical depiction. When you are looking for the Anna Karenina story, you had better see other versions for sure. The major reason why I like it lies in the presence of Garbo and Gilbert, two main characters into whose empty lives has swept a force that illumines them and changes everything. After their ultra popular FLESH AND THE DEVIL where the chemistry between the two was an absolute revelation and Garbo's magnetism on screen was the combination of thrill and joy, carnal desire and overwhelming beauty, here, Garbo plays again opposite Gilbert and she is truly in love with him as Anna is in love with Vronsky. And the handsome Captain Vronsky though careless, reckless once changes himself from within. Gilbert is no worse in the role of Vronsky than he is in his roles as Leo Von Harden, Nevs or Antonio. Their scenes can boast unforgettable chemistry and appear to be timelessly genuine. You watch a silent film where two people are really in love with each other...that says for itself. It must have been a smashing success. Garbo and Gilbert are really in LOVE!

That aspect is strongly combined with their scenes and moments that are hard to forget. For who can skip the luminous dance on Easter Night? Who can remain indifferent to their spiritual contact at the scenes galore, for instance the one of the military race? Who is ready to ignore the tension and wit at their first meeting? This combination of magical charm, chemistry, and wit leaves a lasting impression in the viewer and you simply consider LOVE one of those silent films that are pleasantly watched over and over again. This power of the main couple makes you forget the source novel and forgive some inaccuracies and liberties. You simply watch a film.

The supporting cast contribute to three people: Brandon Hurst as Karenin, George Fawcett as Grand Duke and Phillippe De Lacy as Serezha. Mr Hurst represents memorably the person who cannot stand any sensation and is a man of old morals, as he says: 'any gossip about my wife reflects upon me.' Mr Fawcett is the actor who portrays his role as memorably as he did portray Pastor Voss in FLESH AND THE DEVIL. Yet, in LOVE he is a different person, no longer raging about the sins of his sheep but an understanding general, who has a sense of humor, who understands delays and gets the gist of sacrifice rightly. Phillippe De Lacy is memorable as Anna's child and steals some of the best scenes with Garbo. It is important to state that those supporting cast also make LOVE a memorable silent.

Therefore, LOVE is another Garbo film I consider a must in my gallery, a pearl of old days when cinema conveyed humane message, when performances were unforgettable, when there were great stars that illumined screen, Garbo and Gilbert in LOVE in a bright story of Love that may face its darkness but is finally illuminated by the dawn of a new day...

LOVE is the perfect title for this hacked-down adaptation of Tolstoy's mammoth novel ANNA KARENINA. It was made to cash in on the popularity of Greta Garbo and John Gilbert, fresh from their box office triumph in FLESH AND THE DEVIL earlier the same year. Like virtually all of Garbo's silent films, much of the screen time is devoted to watching the great tormented Swede abandon herself to love, suffer for love, contemplate love, lose love, die. It is interesting to compare this version of the novel with the one made eight years later in which Garbo played opposite Fredric March who, while less dashing and handsome than Gilbert, did give a fine performance as the impetuous and essentially cruel Count Vronsky. In the latter film Garbo is less attractive due to the clash between the curly coiffure she is given and the strong planes and features of her face. She even looks like a male in drag in some scenes. But in LOVE she is beautiful and feminine throughout. The clinging 1920's-style dresses help, even if they detract from the authenticity of a story that is supposed to be set in 1870's Russia. Gilbert was one of the best actors of his era and the talent shows here. He is also a magnetic screen presence and one can understand why audiences in 1927 flocked to see these two together.

The scenes of mother-son tenderness between Garbo and Philippe deLacy do indeed seem incestuous as others have pointed out, but so do the scenes between Garbo and Freddie Bartholomew in the 1935 version. I think it was just Garbo's way of expressing love on screen; you see her perform the same kind of nuzzling in other movies, whether the attentions are being given to a man, a woman or a child. I disliked both endings, but at least Garbo was ravishing in the happy one. And remember, Garbo was just shy of 22 when she filmed this, yet she is believable as an older woman. She had a face that could express any age.

This movie cries out for a re-scoring. The print shown on TCM is marred by what sounds like muffled applause from time to time.

With a mix of modern dresses for the ladies and typical regimental outfits for the men, this adaptation of ANNA KARENINA is quite different from the novel and other film versions in a few ways. After deserting her family for Vronsky, he does not tire of and desert her - he stays faithful - it is she who voluntarily gives him up to prevent his being thrown out of the Guards and thereby saves his name from disgrace - her suicide is to save him, rather than being an act of despair.

Anna's completely "losing it" when his horse falls in a race - in front of society - is her downfall as it exposes their affair to the world, after which society must wreak its revenge. Without this "flaw," things might have gone otherwise for her.

The finest scenes are between Garbo and Philippe de Lacy, who plays her son. Their two scenes are so full of playful mother-son love as to prove to better than Garbo's scenes with Gilbert. Indeed, there is none of the passion or obsession here that the two displayed earlier that year in FLESH AND THE DEVIL. de Lacy is a beautiful young actor and a "natural." One of the annoying things about Vronsky is his inability to understand this love - he selfishly wants Anna all to himself - the cad!

Garbo's farewell scene with Gilbert, she knowing she'll never see him again and he oblivious to this fact, is also quite well done.

The TCM print is flawed by having a live audience reacting poorly on the soundtrack, although the newly commissioned score by Arnold Brostoff is quite fine. This soundtrack addition occurred in 1994 and seems the only one accompanying prints of the film currently.

There is a beautifully photographed waltz with Garbo and Gilbert - oft seen in compilations and reminiscent of his waltz scenes with Mae Murray in THE MERRY WIDOW.

All in all, worth catching for Garbo, but the two later remakes of the work are much better.

Did you know Greta Garbo played Anna Karenina twice? I didn't know, but once I found out, I rented the silent version at once. It's not the greatest story out there, but it is a classic, and for some reason, I watch every version I can get my hands on.

This one has a different title, and for good reason: it's quite different. It's contemporary-and by that, of course, I mean it takes place in 1927-and the tragic tone is put on hold for the purpose of entertainment. Anna Karenina wears breezy dresses and a cloche hat while falling in love with Count Vronsky, a military hero. She's still married to an older, respectable man she doesn't love, and she still has a little boy she loves more than anything. Without spoiling anything, I'll just tell you to rent this version if you haven't been happy with the other versions you've seen. It's pretty different, and it will please a lot of people. I enjoyed it because it served as a perfect example of why silent movies were so popular. This movie doesn't feel like it's missing anything. It's a simple story of two people falling in love, and with only a few title cards, the entire story can be unfolded in silence. Dialogue simply isn't needed, which was why many audience members didn't see the need for talkies when they first came out. Many people nowadays don't know this, but it took a couple of years of gradually fading out the silent movies for people to completely abandon them and flock to the talkies.