Guerre et Paix

The negative comments here, which I read after watching the miniseries, led me to two things: First, re-read the book, which I hadn't done in ages. Second, I re-watched the Bondarchuk version, which I'd seen way back then when it was first theatrically released. I have to say that all I remembered was simply its length and the scope of the war scenes as it had been widely impressed on viewers at the time that the Soviet army had actually re-enacted them with the blessing of the Soviet state, a propaganda coup in those Cold War times. Yet I seem to remember it as a bit of a bore.

Frankly, people, those who are so negative about this miniseries seem to have watched something else altogether different or need go back and reread the book (if they ever did) and rewatch the Bondarchuk version (ditto). Unlike their claims, it's so happens that the miniseries is actually quite close to the book and a very honorable rendition of Tolstoy's work. Certainly, it doesn't portray Tolstoy's lengthy disquisitions on history and so on, obviously because they are not cinematographic. As to casting, people seem to forget that Bondarchuk, then in his forties, cast himself in the role of Pierre-and he didn't happen to be a very good actor, to boot! Fonda was clearly badly cast, but so was Bondarchuk with the aggravating circumstances that in his case it comes across as a vanity thing. This round goes to Dano, who is an excellent actor and way closer in age to the character.

The other role that seems to have particularly grated on people is Natasha. But in Bondarchuk's film, the role went to a ballet dancer, with no acting experience except for the artificial miming required in the 19th century classic ballets. And this shows bigly, as she plays Natasha as though she were dancing the role! As a former dancer who has also been trained in acting, I can vouch for the differences between the two performance genres and how an unpondered transfer of techniques used in one don't necessarily transfer well to the other. Watching her enact Natasha is excruciating as her gesturing, posturing, and body movement, very obviously coming from ballet miming conventions, are quite artificial and stilted. She simply looks like she strayed into the series from a performance of Swan Lake. Lily James is a perfectly good actress and this round goes to her as well.

All in all, while I can't speak of all the versions out there since I've only seen Hepburn's, Bondarchuk's, and this miniseries, I think this the best of what I know. And I appreciate it greatly for its cohesiveness, faithfulness to the original, excellent production values, acting, and overall quality.

I have read some of the reviews, and seen previous versions so looked forward to this with both hope and trepidation. I loved Anthony Hopkins in the 70s as Pierre, Sergay Bondachuk in the Russian version and Henry Fonda earlier than that. The character is one of my all time favourites, so it took me a while to take to Paul Dano, but once I had, I found it to be a sensitive performance that had its own merits, and deserves praise. Jim Broadbent, Ade Edmondson and the rest of the cast also make it worthy of your time.

All I can say is enjoy the show, lap up the scenery, wallow in the wonderful characters and costumes, charge in your minds eye to battle and dance at the balls. Visit Old St Petersburg without leaving your armchair and be entertained. The book has too much to ever do justice to, (unless perhaps Peter Jackson took it under his wing).

After Anna Karenina, I was looking forward to War and Peace being more epic and heart rending. And I have not been disappointed so far. The story line seems a little bit rushed at times, but this was a truly mammoth story and Andrew Davies has a reputation for making fine series out of monumental classics.

So far there is rather more peace than war, but the three central characters, Pierre, Prince Andrei and Natasha seem remarkably well cast and the eternal triangle is forming in a complex way, as expected. The series does not feel terribly Russian but clearly the culture and problems that existed at the time were peculiar to continental Europe. Napoleon was terrorising all of Europe and like many before and after him, thought that Russia would fall under his spell. Its therefore no wonder that characters like Prince Andrei found the military a perfect vehicle for their ambitions and patriotism. But the war was clearly going to decimate many of the leading members of Russian society.

Tolstoy's ability to tell a complex love story is already showing through, and the lesser characters like Prince Vassily, Andrei;s sister Marya and Jim Broadbent's wonderful cameo as Andrei's father make this first rate entertainment.

My only complaint would be that there is not more of this spellbinding story.

Mary Gumsley

Andrew Davies' latest BBC production, War & Peace, is an absolutely splendid TV adaptation of the epic novel.

First things first: do not compare a six hour adaptation to the book. Of course there can not be the same level of detail either in character development or plot. This adaptation should be taken on its own merits.

In my option, the outstanding components of this version are:

1. Paul Dano is well suited as Pierre, particularly in his well- practised range (from meek and mild to a raging temper) as seen in, to name one example, There Will Be Blood.

2. The cinematography is stunning. There are beautiful close-ups of couples dancing, for instance, sprawling vistas and an impressive symmetry to various shots.

3. The score is impressive in its variation and poignancy.

4. The costumes are, as you would expect, incredible.

I'm looking forward to seeing the remaining three episodes!

The poor reviews that I've seen seem to betray either delusion or a complete misunderstanding of the book. This is an excellent adaptation.

War and Peace is a story of mortals, fallible, corrupt, and yet full of love and hope. Some of the reviewers seem to have gotten in their head that Prince Andrey or Natasha should be like gods and goddesses when Tolstoy could not have intended anything farther from that. Tolstoy meant for us to see how the lives of admirable men and women are yet filled with foolishness. We are meant to see that in the end, the foolishness shouldn't matter.

Others seem to be aghast that there's infidelity, violence, and dishonesty. My God, I can only imagine that these reviewers would be better off watching Barney and Friends. This adaptation captures brilliantly Tolstoy's view of how terrible the course of human interaction can run, and yet there is something magical to life.

As far as the casting goes, I personally thought Sonya was a little too plain, Princess Marya a little too attractive, and Pierre rather too skinny, but these physical quibbles are nitpicky. Each performance seems true to Tolstoy's characterizations, if not the idealizations people have conjured in their minds. In my view, Denisov, though a minor character, is particularly brought to life. The old Prince Bolkonsky also is terrific.

Finally, I am no expert on 19th century Russian aristocratic dress or interior design, but frankly I saw nothing particularly out of place. I would be quite surprised if any of the reviewers who took issue with the costumes or the decorations were far more knowledgeable.