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.