Anna Karenina

[osprey_archer]

We went to see Anna Karenina last night! It was...very odd. They go with the whole "imperial Russia was an unreal stage!" conceit, and by go with it, I mean that half of the movie is set literally on a stage. There's no explanation for it. The characters are just on a stage. There's one scene where Levin goes backstage, and it's a street scene, except with ropes and pulleys and catwalks. It's delightfully surreal.

Levin and Kitty's story is, almost inevitably, shortchanged, which is too bad because they are my favorite. I think you'd have to do a miniseries to capture all of Anna Karenina properly, though, and moreover Kitty & Levin's story is exceptionally introspective, so I don't know how one would portray it even then.

Keira Knightley was beautiful as always as Anna Karenina, even though she was saddled with the unenviable task of portraying a cascade of nervous breakdowns. If Vronsky still loved her by the end, he's a better man than I. (Also, Vronsky? Kind of a stalker.)

It's unfortunate that Knightley does so many period pieces, though. Not that she isn't good in them, but she has this great energy as an actress, which I think she channels best in contemporary movies: Bend It Like Beckham (which is still my favorite of her movies) and Love Actually.

Comments

[carmarthen.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it was a bizarre movie, but hey, at least it was decorative. I thought it was interesting that not only was Vronsky period-attractive rather than a modern leading man, but we saw FAR more of his skin than Anna's. I am not sure what they were trying to say, but it's such a marked contrast from the usual it can't have been accidental. I am rather tired of women who turn into sex-starved barnacles because plot, though I don't know how faithful that is to the book.

Definitely would have liked more Kitty and Levin.

I am not sure I liked the movie, but I'm glad I saw it, I guess.

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

It's actually surprisingly faithful to the book. Given the length of the adaptation vs. the length of the book, I thought they would have to make sharper cuts, but they actually caught most of the high points of Anna and Vronsky's story without seeming like they were rushing (and while maintaining an emotional through line) which was impressive.

They did change some of the emotional tenor of the story, though. The movie hits the "Anna has nervous breakdowns" button harder than the book did, though: the book focused more on her guilt. (Not in a slut-shaming sort of way; the book is actually very sympathetic to...basically all its characters, really.)

As you liked Kitty and Levin, I urge you to give the book a go (once life settles down, of course). It has a LOT more of them than the movie, and It's surprisingly non-depressing for a Russian novel.

[carmarthen.livejournal.com]

I am not sure I have an attention span for Russian lit right now, but I'm thinking about it.

Re: Keira Knightley in period pieces, yeah. I think BILB is my favorite thing she's done. I like her in period stuff, she looks lovely in period clothes and all, but I feel like she's gotten stuck in a rut of playing a particular type of character, especially recently -- the woman trapped in her marriage/setting/role putting up an increasingly brittle facade of happiness.

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

I am an Anna Karenina pusher! I suggest it to all my friends who make the mistake of giving me an opening. Also The Master and Margarita, if you want something shorter. It involves the Devil running around Moscow.

And I think it would be great if Keira Knightley broke out of that type-casting. Actually it looks like she has been in a number of non-period pieces lately, but as a supporting character in a thrillerish thing about a guy - in other words, movies I am not interested in. I want Keira Knightley to star in something that's about her character.