A couple of weeks ago I went to see the completely crappy Gerrard Butler flick in lieu of
Anna Karenina, the trailer, because I was afraid I'd be disappointed by Keira Knightly. Big mistake.
Today I went to see
Anna Karenina with my uncle for his birthday. He's a Tolstoy fanatic (and I mean that as a true compliment). My mom, my aunt, and my cousin, an accomplished actor, came along too.
 |
| Anna |
This movie was brilliant! I want to see it again. and again. It's an interesting interpretation of the book. I felt it remained true to the story without strictly following the plot. Bravo, Tom Stoppard. For instance, the dance scene where Vronsky transfers his 'love' from Kitty to Anna. That's not how it happens in the book, but the viewer ends up with the same feeling as she does reading the book's scenes-- gut wrenched. I also found the expected sophomoric humor true to Tolstoy too: dog poot and nose blowing. Tolstoy paid a lot of attention to the material world and to details that would never be filed under "high art". It's true to life that funny things happen at the most inopportune times.
I felt the movie took advantage of the visual cues: color, the theater, some of the shots are amazing... even if it occasionally was over the top.
 |
| Karenin |
My biggest disappointment: Karenin. Jude Law turned the detestable character into an almost likable bloke. I take issue with this. In the book, he's the epitome of frigid obligation. He's narrow and rigid. He makes the reader's skin crawl without a single misstep. He has no clue how to be human. He has no friends. He turns love into a formula. He turns the gospel into a formula. His forgiveness serves as a death sentence to Anna because of his incapability to love or receive or give grace. Jude Law's Karenin is warm-blooded, which makes Anna out to be more of a tart than in actuality. Tolstoy's Karenin would leech the life and spirit out of any passionate woman-- any woman.
I enjoyed how stylized the picture was. I especially liked the completely choreographed bureaucracy scene-- as were the society scenes. Tolstoy felt the same way about bureaucracy and society; he was no fan. I liked Levin, although I always imagined him older and bald. Trust me, the movie's version was far easier on the eyes than my mind's eye's version.
The quotation: "There are as many loves as their are hearts" has gotten a lot of attention. I believe Stoppard used it as the organizing point of his movie adaptation. I think Tolstoy makes a strong case that is limited to the character of the person who offers it: Karenin, Oblonsky, Vronsky, and Levin are capable of very different types of love-- some more true and real. However, I don't think Tolstoy was a postmodernist. He had more in mind that character flaws are limitations on one's ability to love.
 |
| Oblonsky |
For example, the affable character Oblonsky; he's a chummy cad that one cannot help but like whose early dalliance caused the meeting between Anna and Vronsky. (Is that a comment on how connected we are to one another and how are personal sin affects others?) But, his inability to remain true to his wife Dolly is linked throughout the story to his debt. He sells Dolly's land/dowry in order to cover his debts. He lacks discipline and self control, which punishes his family. He loves Dolly, but his love is limited to his refusal to restrain himself. He is ruled by his appetites. Whereas, Levin is almost the opposite: his honor almost prevents him asking Kitty to marry him again. Then, there is Karenin who is incapable of love. Does Vronsky love Anna? That's the question my mom asked at the end of the film, and it's a good one. I answered to the degree he was able.
It's a thought-provoking film well worth seeing.
6 comments:
A very good critique of the movie by someone who's also read the book. A couple of thoughts. I myself don't think Vronsky was ever in love with Kitty and didn't transfer his love but rather his interest from Kitty to Anna. He never loved Kitty but he did love Anna although even his love for her was flawed. Tolstoy outlines in the book that marriage and family never fully presented themselves as possibilities for Vronsky as they did for Levin. For Vronsky, Anna was a romantic conquest; once the romantic feelings dissipated, the suffering began. This is what attracted me to the story in the beginning. C.S. Lewis makes reference to the novel in his book the Four Loves in the Eros portion when uses Anna and Vronsky as an example of erotic love as insufficient love when it doesn't have agape underpinnings for support.
Another point to support my view about how Levin and Vronsky approached love differently and which I thought was pointed out well in the movie: Notice how Vronsky's and Anna's baby was always in the background whereas Kitty and Levin's child was a celebration. I think Anna had difficulty loving her daughter because she was a constant reminder of the tragic position she (Anna) was in; this was further compounded by the loss of her son whom she had sacrificed for Vronsky's love. The birth of Levin's child on the other hand gave him pause to reconsider his relationship to God whom he had abandoned as an adult. I especially enjoyed the conversation Levin had with his servant companion who pointed out that life was not always about reason and logic when he said to Levin: "Your marriage...was that accomplished by reason?" (Note: I'm paraphrasing here, but I do believe that was the general thought.)
Interesting movie to see. Definitely will give it a watch. Great review. Glad you enjoyed it.
From Anna Karenina,Chapter XVI with regard to Vronsky and his feelings for Kitty: "He did not know that his mode of behavior in relation to Kitty had a definite character, that is courting young girls with no intention of marriage, and that such courting is one of the evil actions common with brilliant young men such as he was. It seemed to him that he was the first who had discovered this pleasure, and he was enjoying his discovery.
Again from AK, Ch. XVI with regard to Vronsky and marriage: "Marriage had never presented itself to him as a possibility. He not only disliked family life but a family, and especially a husband was, in accordance with the views general in the bachelor world in which he lived, conceived as something alien, repellent, and, above all, ridiculous."
Now contrast Vronsky's view of marriage with that of Levin's: "He was so far from conceiving of love for a woman apart from marriage that he positively pictured himself first the family, and only secondarily the woman who would give him the family. His idea of marriage were, consequently, quite unlike those of the great majority of his acquaintances, for whom getting married was one of numerous facts of social life. For Levin it was the chief affair of life, on which its whole happiness turned. And now he had to give up that." Taken from Chapter XXVII shortly after Kitty had rejected his offer of marriage.
Post a Comment