Pages

Friday, November 30, 2012

Anna Karenina


I suppose as good a way as any is to begin by stating that Leo Tolstoy’s iconic novel, Anna Karenina, remains unread by me. And probably always will. It’s just not my thing. And I only mention this as a means of giving context to this review: I am an Anna Karenina novice. Going into the film, I hadn’t the slightest idea what the movie was about. The trailer flexed notions of an infidelity drama set centuries back, directed and starring people who make great films together. That’s all I had going in.

What I can assert after seeing Joe Wright’s Anna Karenina is that it is a lively, inventive period piece unlike any film I’ve ever seen. The problem that I’m still trying to wrap my head around is that, given how unique and seemingly energetic it is, why am I left feeling as though it is forgettable and utterly lifeless?

Maybe that’s not fair, I’m honestly not sure yet. Let’s start with the good and see what happens.
Most all of Anna Karenina was shot on a single sound stage in London. This means no matter the setting – a busy office, a snowy field, a crowded opera, a lavish reception – every scene takes place within the same space. And because Wright so frequently opts for extended, unbroken takes, this means there were dozens (…hundreds?) of people directly off camera changing the sets while the camera was still rolling. Not to mention the actors in frame who had to shift from one setting to another, playing in scenes that are often spaced days apart, all in the same shot. It is a technical triumph that deserves limitless praise, and I was consistently in awe of the skill involved. If this film is ignored for nominations for technical Oscars including Cinematography, Costume Design, Art Direction and more, it would be one of the greatest movie award sins of the year.

I haven’t even described what the film is about, and perhaps that’s because, aside from its monumental technical proficiency, there isn’t much more I can positively say. Wright regular Keira Knightley plays Anna, a 19th century woman who married into Russian nobility when she hitched the kind, faithful Alexei (Jude Law). Presumably disinterested with the wining, dining, dancing, and posturing, her eyes and heart lock on Count Vronsky (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), and an epic, royal affair takes hold. Once Anna’s infidelity with Vronsky becomes public, her friends renounce her and her husband threatens the most grueling separation possible.
One thing that is evident from the onset, aside from the film’s deliberate staging, is its purposeful playfulness. I suppose, given how much heavy shit goes down in this film, it’s safe to call it a drama, but there’s no denying that it’s a farcical one at that. And perhaps that’s where Anna Karenina led me astray. It’s constantly going for a sardonic, whimsical tone that never fully hits. I would’ve preferred an out-and-out comedy, or a heavy-hitting drama, rather than a film that desperately wants to be both.

Another note of personal criticism: I have no problem admitting when a film completely loses me. Maybe it’s a fault of the movie, maybe I just wasn’t fast enough to pick up on it, either way, sometimes I’m lost, and I like to know why. Where Anna Karenina lost me most was in its dedication to a subplot involving Anna’s brother’s best friend, and the woman he is courting. This romance has nothing whatsoever to do with the Anna/Alexei/ Vronsky love triangle, and, as far as I can tell, nothing to do with anything. I had no idea why the movie spent so much time focusing on this romance. Again, I’m a rookie to Tolstoy’s source novel, but at 129 very long minutes of running time, I simply do not see the value of including a romance that adds nothing.

Wright and Knightley’s previous collaborations include a lively remake of Pride & Prejudice, and the thrilling Atonement. Both of those films are substantially more accomplished than Anna Karenina, but only in story execution. Technically, Anna Karenina is as fine an achievement as I’ve seen this year. Is that enough to make it worthy? You tell me. B-

32 comments:

  1. I thought about seeing it since I do like Joe Wright's work with the exception of The Soloist but I too am a novice on Tolstoy. The reviews haven't been great and I heard very bad reviews for Aaron Johnson's performance. I guess I'll just wait for it on TV.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Soloist, shit, I really disliked that movie. Completely forgot about it. I didn't really feel the need to fully get into it, but yeah, Aaron Johnson isn't good in this film. Shame.

      Delete
  2. I'm in the same boat as you, Alex (source material novice).

    What an excellent review that has definitely intrigued me, at least to see the incredible technical display you mention.
    Otherwise I suppose, this one isn't on my list.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks man, glad you liked the review. The technical achievements here are impossible to ignore, but beyond that, there's nothing for me to recommend. Oh well!

      Delete
  3. I really want to watch it. Though I'm not a fan of her as an actress, Kiera Knightley is best exploited by Wright.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh I agree, Knightley is remarkable in Wright's films. Her work in Atonement is flawless. Can't say the same here.

      Delete
  4. See, I though there WAS a true emotional impact in the first hour - only the first hour - because all of Wright's theatrics - which are just amazing - really underscore that on-airs, that almost disbelieving feeling of love and/or infatuation. Ya know? So I didn't think it was all just style, it really felt like getting swept away.

    But then when it has to turn darker, the style of that first hour no longer matches up to the tone and so the whole thing grinds to a halt and just completely loses you emotionally.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a very fair analysis. I think regardless if that first hour is all style and/or completely engrossing, I'm glad we agree that the final hour makes the whole movie fall flat. Bummer.

      Delete
  5. I love Tolstoy (Anna Karenina & War and Peace), but oddly, I haven't seen any of the numerous film adaptations of Anna Karenina. I agree with Nikhat that Kiera Knightley seems to do her best work with Joe Wright.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd be really interested to hear your take on this film as a Tolstoy fan. And I definitely agree - Knightley's work with Wright has previously been excellent. It's only decent here though.

      Delete
  6. I think the movie lost you because you didn't read the novel - I have not seen Wright's movie yet but I'm a big fan of the story, on the other hand I feel the movie who sorta requires a viewer to read the novel prior to seeing it - as it seems Anna Karenina did for you - is a failure as adaptation.

    The point of Levin was to show a different path of love and the virtue of work, he is a good man who wants to improve himself so he is rewarded with happiness with Kitty - who, when she was living rich, entitled life only met suffering and illness and when she went with Levin she found happy life. It's kind of a parallel story in the novel to selfish Anna and Vronsky and Anna's suffering that started when she was renounced by her rich friends.

    Had they not included Levin's story the film would definetly fail as adaptation too but if they lost you because the story took too much time that tells me Wright didn't really handled it well.

    Either way I'm curious about the movie but I'll catch it on the DVD. Great review!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Okay cool, that is exactly what I thought the point of that subplot was, but, as you said, as a Tolstoy novice, I was completely lost. (Also, I'm so glad you agree that you shouldn't have to read a book in order to fully appreciate a film adaptation.)

      It's kind of like the Sally Hawkins subplot in Mike Leigh's Vera Drake - showing how if you do have the money and family entitlement, a legal abortion is possible. I understand that kind of juxtaposition, I just wish Wright's film accentuated it more.

      Delete
    2. I haven't seen this movie yet, so no opinion. But if the movie didn't do justice to Levin and his relationship with Kitty, that's definitely a failure in the adaptation. I'm a lifelong bibliophile, but I think a film should stand on its own merits and be fully accessible to people who haven't read the book.

      Delete
    3. I honestly don't know if it did the Levin/Kitty relationship justice, but I do know that I had no idea who those people were while I was watching the movie. The juxtaposition of love definitely makes sense though, just not very clear in the film.

      Delete
    4. I don't think that was totally lost in the film - I haven't read the novel, either (and didn't know much about the story except that it was about a scandalous affair, and I knew Anna's fate), and while for a long part of the running time I thought the Levin/Kitty story was superfluous, it all came together for me when Kitty was caring for Levin's brother. Both Kitty and Anna risked their reputations by associating with the wrong people and refusing follow what society deemed acceptable behavior, but Kitty did so for utterly selfless reasons, while Anna was utterly selfish through the entire thing. That subplot crystalized the contrast being made between the decadence of both society and Anna's ultimately futile attempt to circumvent it, and the promise offered by Levin's way of life.

      I pretty much loved the film unabashedly, but I'm also an admitted style whore. I can definitely see why others would find it shallow or forgettable.

      Delete
    5. In hindsight, the Levin/Kitty ordeal makes sense. But contextually, while the film was going, I simply couldn't keep up. Too much jumping and twirling and... just too much. But, yes, looking back, I dig what everyone involved was trying to do.

      Loved your "style whore" line, shit made me laugh. Glad you loved the movie!

      Delete
  7. I'm excited about this, I loved P&P and Atonement but the reviews have got me nervous. At least they're not totally negative. I haven't read it and I think a lot of people haven't - I don't really know anyone who has. I tried to but it's not as accessible as P&P...AND it's like about 900 pages long.

    http://thisismyluckystar.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I loved P&P and Atonement as well, and no, Anna Karenina definitely isn't all negative. It was just middle of the road for me. Nothing to rave about, you know?

      Thanks for your blog link, I'll scope it out in a bit!

      Delete
  8. Good review Alex. Started off so perfectly with a quick and beautiful pace, but then just loses itself by the end and gets way, way too boring and slow for my taste. At least the performances held my interest, but even then, the characters were a bit too unlikable to really give a hoot about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Dan! Yup, totally agree with your comment. Great start, but it teeters off from there.

      Delete
  9. Great review man. I went in knowing just as much as you did, and I came out with the same reaction. It's a gorgeous film, but I wasn't wowed by anything apart from the visuals.

    I was let down by Knightley's performance as well. I'd easily rank this below her performances in Atonement, P&P, and even The Duchess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad we're in-line on this one. I was honestly a little worried that I would get my head bitten off for not fully "getting it," but that seems to be the general consensus here.

      I liked Knightley in it, but no, not as much as Atonement, P&P and The Duchess. Not by a long shot.

      Delete
  10. Great review. I'll preface this by saying, I have read the book, but that the movie actually brought out an interpretation the book did not give me. And that was that what you saw with Kitty was to show the rewards of unselfish love and virtue and to darken the contrast of the selfishness you saw in Anna.

    Part of that contrast is something that I have seen in other Russian novels and I think is somewhat indicative of not just Tolstoy, but his contemporaries as well.

    I agree that you should not have to read the book to understand the movie, and in this case I am sure there are things lost in there because of it, but I was thoroughly impressed with what Wright was able to do with 2 hours from a 850 page novel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I FULLY enjoy that kind of contrast. I think it can be so beneficial to the main story at hand, but Wright's film just lost me in it.

      Really happy to see that you agree that you shouldn't have to read the book to appreciate the movie. I remember all those LOTR conversations we had back in the day about that!

      Delete
  11. I had a chance to see this new film in London recently, but with the mixed reviews, I decided to see other releases that have been receiving more praise. What I take away from your review is you liked certain things and also disliked various elements, so what I'm saying is I'm glad I skipped it.

    I saw the Sophie Marceau 1997 film adaptation a few months ago, which was decent. I don't know if you agree with me on this; following your passion without thinking about the consequences, isn't that theme kind of in the spirit of A Place in the Sun (1951)? Thanks for the rec on that one by the way, loved it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I honestly think you were wise to skip it. It does have enjoyable aspects, but much of it is a wash as well.

      Dude, that is a great summation of A Place in the Sun... I never even considered that. I think that fits really well. Great, now I have to watch A Place in the Sun again. Glad you liked that one!

      Delete
    2. "following your passion without thinking about the consequences", I think it fits the Anna Karenina character also. (not sure I said that)

      Delete
    3. Yeah I got what you meant. I'd agree that it fits her as well, but not nearly executed as effectively as A Place in the Sun.

      Delete
  12. I saw the movie in September and loved it- maybe the whole visual aspect clouded my judgement, but I thought it was wonderfully done. From what I've heard, the book itself is not very interesting or full of action, so I guess Wright didn't have too much to go on, but I still think he did a good job. The performances were also good, but I agree something was missing. Still, it is one of the best of 2012 for me, just for its sets, costumes and art direction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's cool that you enjoyed it so much, I know many people who have, and that's completely understandable. A B- from me is in no way a put down, you know? Solid effort by Wright and Co., just not a perfect one.

      Delete
  13. Nice review, I think I gave it the same rating as you. I give my wins to the film for costume design and production design.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks! All of the technical work was flawless, no doubt. Story just never fully hit.

      Delete