“The relationship between any movie adaptation and its literary source is more like a passionate fling, a ships-passing-in-the-night moment when the patient prose of fiction meets the flickering, fluid poetry of film, and they see something in one another and decide, against all reason, to give it a go.” (Rafferty) I have two passions in my life: literature and cinematography. However I love them separately, as all the efforts to merge them together are rarely crowned with success, even if the most talented directors work on such movies. Therefore, I did not expect Anna Karenina” by Joe Wright to be a success, as I was almost sure that Englishmen will not be able to depict the profoundness and peculiarity of a Russian soul. Fortunately, the director could amaze even such a skeptic as I am.
One cannot disagree; the effort to make a 2-hour movie based on 600-page novel is quite a brave step. And to make that movie in the theater motif is “risky and ambitious enough to count as an act of artistic hubris”(Scott). For those who have read the Tolstoy’s masterpiece, the movie might seem quite inaccurate. And that is true, as a lot of scenes are left out, the protagonist (Anna) is not opened to the full extend, and the actor’s play could have been more convincing. English Anna Karenina, with a bony Keira Knightley as a title character, is a very unexpected spectacle. No doubt, it was interesting to observe Knightley’s play, but the fact remains the same: she did not even closely look like Tolstoy’s Anna. Are such mistakes permissible in a film adaptation of a classic work, where every detail matters? Definitely no.
However, let’s take a look at the movie from a different perspective. If one perceives the movie as the one, that is only based on Tolstoy’s novel, not the adaptation of it, it does not seem that weak, on the contrary, it is a fairly good love story, oriented on the mass market. Yes, Wright's movie is not a retelling of Tolstoy's book; it is a work of art in its own right.
Perhaps Keira Knightley is not Karenina. “There is a deeper character to Anna — she is strong, emotional, and willful — that underlies the turmoils she goes through in the story. That seemed to be lacking in Knightley’s Anna.” (Zepeda) Joe Wright shows us a very different Anne - hysterical, selfish lady, who finds a relief in alcohol and morphine, and who decided to commit suicide mainly because of jealousy, and the edification of others.
However, what do you expect from a modern English director, word-to-word narration of a 600-page novel? He rethought the novel in his own way, and in his own, specific way understood the main character Anna. In my opinion, Wright should not be blamed for removing social drama from his “Anna Karenina”, even though, according to Tolstoy, social drama is principal for the novel. Russian social drama of 19th century is not interesting to a contemporary American audience. However love, betrayal, death is of interest to all, regardless of age and nationality. The scenarist has done his job perfectly, as the adapted version of the novel fits our time and culture. No movie can show what Tolstoy wanted to say, and those, with traditional views should better read the book.
The film is symbolic; it is impregnated with all the aesthetics of decadence. And Karenina-Knightley looks gorgeous in that entourage. Snow, beard and Russian national music as a background are used very wisely, as they remind the American, English, French, etc. audience that the drama was unfolding in Russia. The same should be said about the costumes of characters, which do not even closely replicate the outfits of that era. Gorgeous dresses and pearls Anna wears are rather glamorous than historically accurate; they are designed, so that a viewer can clearly see and feel the luxury and drama of the main character. The only time when Anna appears in a dress, which is entirely appropriate for the 19th century — last episodes of the movie, when she makes a fateful decision.
In general, the theme of love in the picture comes to the fore. The main character’s drama ceases to be social (unlike in the novel), and becomes purely human. Jude Law as Karenin was impeccable. However just like Keira Knightley, and Aaron Taylor-Johnson – is not Tolstoy’s character. Wright saw him as a loving husband, who, according to Christian morality, forgives his wife. If the director aimed to show the greatness of a Russian soul – it had turned out brilliantly in the Karenin image, embodied by Jude Law.
Balancing between the real life and the theater play, where real people look like lifeless mannequins, and life — like stage sets, Mr. Wright made a very original, offbeat, dazzlingly beautiful picture.
All in all, the movie is worth watching, for those who like such brave experiments with classic literature, and for those who despise all the endeavors to revive masterpieces in movies. Even though the film does not have a lot in common with Tolstoy’s novel, I strongly believe that it came out ravishing, and it definitely is a work of art in its own right. With all the respect to great classic Tolstoy, Stoppard’s screenplay is a great piece of literary art. The scenarist has only “borrowed” Tolstoy’s idea and characters, but all the details and dialogs are original, and that deserves respect. “Pious Tolstoyans may knit their brows about the stylistic liberties Mr. Wright and the screenwriter, Tom Stoppard, have taken, but surely Tolstoy can withstand (and may indeed benefit from) their playful, passionate rendering of his masterpiece.”(Scott)
Work Cited
Scott A.O. “Infidelity, Grandly Staged”. Nytimes.com, 15 Nov 2012. Web. 08 Nov 2013
Zepeda, Lucy. “An Oddly Unmoving Anna Karenina”. Nytimes.com, 1 Dec 2012. Web. 08 Nov 2013
Rafferty, Terrence. “Degrees of Infidelity to Tolstoy’s Heroine”. Nytimes.com, 2 Nov 2012. Web. 08 Nov 2013
