lowefreddy

My highly original hot take on this series is that it is completely wonderful. It is the best adaptation of Jane Austen ever, and just one of the best TV shows ever made. Chef's kiss.

Every casting choice is perfect. Jennifer Ehle is so spot-on as Elizabeth Bennet. I idolised her performance as a teenager. I watched her get up and laugh at Darcy's insult at that first ball, and thought, "this woman is SO cool. I want to be that person: the one who gets up and laughs at stuff rather than dwelling or being a victim." I wanted to approach all of life with Elizabeth's smiley delight in society's ridiculousness.

(The buildup to her and Darcy's relationship is exquisite. I'd forgotten how romantic this show is. Their earlier conflict is more memorable and is obviously the part that gets parodied in online memes...but actually, this series nails the more sincerely romantic elements too. Watching Elizabeth slowly fall for him and realise her error is exquisite - and highly relatable.)

It only intensified my love of the novel. I first watched this as a teenager when I was ecstatic at having discovered the novel, and was seeking a faithful adaptation. This really did not disappoint.

I feel that this series is best unanalysed. You don't analyse such sunlit perfection; you bask in its warmth and splendour. Watch it! One of my favourite things ever (alongside the book).

This is the best version of War and Peace. I am a lifelong fan of the novel and have seen two previous adaptations: the '56 King Vidor film and the '67 Bondarchuk film. This miniseries is the best by a landslide.

Andrew Davies is such a gem. He did Pride and Prejudice. He did Sense and Sensibility. He did Othello. He's just a genius.

He has given War and Peace the same treatment he gave Pride and Prejudice back in 1995, in that his interpretations of the characters are SPOT ON. In my view, these performances conjure up Tolstoy's characters almost exactly. So much plot and dialogue from the book is transposed faithfully as well, and packaged in a very watchable, compelling TV show - it just works together perfectly! It really feels like what Tolstoy wrote.

(The instant contrast with the Bondarchuk film was staggering. It's such a bore. And, in my view, not very true to the book's tone. As Tolstoy said himself, "if I were to be told that what I should write would be read in about twenty years' time by those who are now children, and that they would laugh and cry over it and love life, I would devote all my own life and all my energies to it." This series is far closer to that philosophy than the Bondarchuk film! It is energetic, lively, and genuinely moving in places. It is so good.)

There is not a performance I can fault in this. James Norton and Lily James are perfect as Andrey and Natasha. Lily James in particular was fantastic.

(I did think that Norton didn't have enough screentime. His Andrey wasn't quite as complex as Tolstoy's, because he wasn't in it as much! Tolstoy's War and Peace is quite Andrey-centric; Davies's is more Pierre-centric. Nothing wrong with that, because Norton is brilliant in the role anyway, but worth noting.)

I thought every single actor, in fact, was perfectly cast. Whose idea was it to cast Rebecca Front as Anna Mikhailovna? Genius! She got it so right. Tom Burke as Dolokhov was another perfect choice: so slimy and annoying, but retaining that Tolstoyan pathos that cannot help but make us sympathise with him. Brian Cox as Kutuzov was perfect.

Jessie Buckley is far too gorgeous to play Princess Marya, but she gets the personality spot-on. I loved her performance. Her chemistry with Nikolay was heartwarming. Likewise, Sonya didn't quite look as I imagined when reading the book, but again, the character was interpreted well.

The standout, though, was Paul Dano as Pierre. He is phenomenal. Easily the best across the three major War and Peace adaptations. To me, this is exactly who Pierre is. He's so simple - not simple-minded, but simple in his good intentions. He's just lovely, and so well-meaning. And hopeless at social procedure, bless him. Pierre represents simplicity and goodness, and Dano conveys that perfectly.

(Though Dano didn't shy away from the character's more brutal and intense side either, especially in the early scenes with Hélène. That's also very important. It's good not to make Pierre look angelic - and he doesn't here!)

And this adaptation is very true to the book. It gets in most of the crucial stuff, and most of it is handled brilliantly. This is an adaptation done by people who really understand War and Peace, and all the clever Easter Eggs and thematic nods are so plentiful that it would take an essay to list them.

There is no perfect adaptation of literature. I do wonder if the ending was a bit rushed. It was a bit of a neat happy ending. (The book's ending is quite dark. Andrey's son appears to hold all the 'glory' values that Andrey himself rejected. But this shows that life - goes - on. There are no neat endings. We must find happiness amidst life's imperfections, not seek to eradicate them.)

Inevitably, you also lose a lot of Tolstoy's philosophising, although an impressive amount was included! I loved the depiction of Andrey's "lofty sky" moment at Austerlitz. Platon Karataev's "live in the moment" philosophy is brilliantly conveyed when we see him and Pierre eat bread together. There are lots of shots of the natural world, symbolising Tolstoy's "infinity of life" and "human smallness" ethos. Even Kutuzov's role - the rejection of military glory, the rejection of typically 'heroic' ideals, trusting to time and patience and mitigating the loss of human life - was very well-conveyed.

But of course, it's no match for the book's philosophical weight.

And Andrew Davies has added some small subplots that aren't in the book. That's fine. Television and literature are different things. Most of the changes are there to make it more dramatic.

Prince Vassily and Dolokhov, for instance, get more pathos from Davies than Tolstoy. We see Vassily at the end when he is grieving for his children, and Pierre forgives him. Likewise, Dolokhov's rescue of Pierre is emphasised as a redemptive return to forgiveness after their earlier fallout. These characters are not redeemed as fervently in the novel. That said, these changes still feel Tolstoyan!

Also, Boris has an affair with Hélène. Weirdly. I assume that was added to make the show racier. (Boris's actor wasn't bad-looking...so nobody's complaining.)

And the incestuous affair is made explicit, rather than implied, as is Hélène's affair with Dolokhov. Again - what the hell. Maybe subtext needs to be more overt onscreen.

But in general, Tolstoy onscreen has rarely been done better. I'm so glad I watched it. The novel would take me between two weeks and two months to read, so to have it adapted so faithfully in a compact miniseries is excellent. Davies is a genius.

What on Earth was that?

I watched the first hour and switched off. I couldn't bear this film. I dread to think that there were seven more hours to go. It committed the Adaptational Cardinal Sin: making me doubt my appreciation for the source material.

This is a very austere adaptation of War and Peace. Really, this film's true audience is cinéastes! If you are studying filmmaking or enjoy lavishly crafted, well-directed shots, this is the film for you. Every shot is very stylised. You could take each one individually and turn it into a painting. "Spectacle" is certainly the film's priority. Far be it for me to critique the talent that has gone into it, because obviously the production effort is overwhelmingly impressive.

But as an adaptation of Tolstoy, I just hated it! It's so dreary.

"...if I were to be told that what I should write would be read in about twenty years' time by those who are now children, and that they would laugh and cry over it and love life, I would devote all my own life and all my energies to it." ~ Leo Tolstoy

Nobody is laughing and crying and loving life over this film. At all.

The actors averaged about one facial expression each. (There are no exceptions.) The camera barely panned onto their faces in some scenes where emotionally crucial things were happening. I know that might be deliberate, as it could symbolise the very Tolstoyan theme of human smallness amidst the broader, 'infinite' world...but no. Tolstoy is still interested in people despite his belief in their smallness! He still zooms in and privileges their experiences. Indeed, his moments of happiness and humour are exquisitely written.

Not in this film.

I don't understand - or agree with - how this adaptation is heralded as the 'closest' to what Tolstoy wrote. For all its austerity and length, it still reduces Anna Mikhailovna to almost nothing, whereas the (shorter!) 2016 miniseries managed to keep her in with all her glory. (Ironically, considering that adaptation's faster pace.) Another IMDB review informs me that Platon Karataev gets very little screentime, which spectacularly misses the point of the book. (Though full disclaimer - I myself didn't get that far.)

Some scenes were just ridiculous. Natasha and Boris's youthful engagement 'kiss' was played to dreary religious music and background noise, and we barely even see the characters speak to each other. Another botch-job is when Marya gives the cross to Andrey. In the book, that scene is heartwarming and poignantly funny! Andrey is a bit cynical about religion but humours his sister anyway. She is aware of this but insists. There's an affectionate humour underlying it. In this film, she puts the cross on him, they make the sign of the cross several times, they both look very grim and miserable, dreary music, cut away to another gorgeous shot...

Jesus Christ.

I reserve judgement because I didn't watch the whole eight hours, but from what I did watch, no. No no no.