The classics of Russian literature don’t tend to have
definitive film versions, though it may be that Tom Stoppard’s adaptation of
Leo Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina changes
that – for a while anyway. There was a Hollywood version in 1948 starring
Vivien Leigh, but it has not stood as an important work of cinematic
adaptation. Generally speaking, the literary adaptations from Hollywood in the
Golden Age offered little in making the works cinematic. They were so often
(and still are, for that matter) like filmed stage plays with sumptuous sets
and intricately patterned costumes and British actors donning an air of
pomposity. These films feel stifled by a desire to be ‘true’ to the material,
making for very boring viewing experiences. To read Anna Karenina should not be the same experience as it is to view
it.
To this end, Stoppard’s trim screenplay and Joe Wright’s
daring and inventive direction drive this particular version more than anything
else. I could prattle on about the story of a young woman in a passionless
marriage to Aleksander Karenin, a stiff high-level bureaucrat. Or I could tell
you about social mores in late 19th century Russia that demand the
ostracizing of a woman who commits infidelity, but look the other way when her
brother does the same to his wife. I could focus on the themes of a changing
society, represented by the second protagonist, Levin, who is caught in between
the two worlds. He’s not quite old world Russia, but doesn’t entirely embrace
Western European ideals. He is the morally upstanding counterpoint to Anna,
however.
For anyone who has read the novel or is at least familiar
with its characters and themes, a summation of plot points is useless. For
those, like me, who have no knowledge of the story before entering the film,
the journey that Stoppard and Wright take you on does not demand any
foreknowledge. Stoppard handles the dense material of Tolstoy’s novel and pares
it down to its essential elements without, so far as I can tell, losing a lot
of the meat. I do get the sense, based on what I’ve read about the novel, that
Levin’s role has been cut significantly. I think that makes some significant
difference as he is designed as the contrast to Anna’s behavior. But then, to
have included much more would have necessitated a much longer running time
which would have, in turn, reduced the film to a tedious exercise in presenting
classic literature on the screen.
Keira Knightley has been Joe Wright’s muse through three
films now, tackling period piece heroines of works by Jane Austen and Ian
McKewan. She is truly growing beyond the adorable young actress she started as in
Bend it Like Beckham and Pirates of the Caribbean. Anna Karenina
is a strong heroine, firm in her convictions that she wants passionate romance
and full access to her children (both legitimate and illegitimate) at the same
time. Knightley pulls this off remarkably, also deftly showing Anna’s
vulnerability and paranoia as her life unravels in the end. The other actors –
Jude Law as her husband; Aaron Taylor-Johnson as her lover, Count Vronsky;
Matthew Macfadyen as her philandering brother; Domhnall Gleeson as Levin; plus
supporting appearances by Kelly MacDonald, Olivia Williams, and Emily Watson –
fill out the rest of space admirably. Taylor-Johnson doesn’t seem quite ready
to fit comfortably in the period drama mold. Jude Law wears his role well, but
he’s far too young for Karenin, in spite of a makeover that gives him added
wrinkles and a significantly receding hairline.
What Wright brings to the material is the film’s most
remarkable accomplishment. The presentation is staged, to a point, as if it
were a theatrical production. It opens on a stage viewed from the orchestra seating
area. The footlights are visible, the curtain opens and the initial action
begins. As characters move from one scene to another, they pass through the
wings of the stage, sometimes into the catwalk, before emerging into an
entirely new set design. The effect calls attention to the staginess of most
period literary adaptations. It seems to announce at once that the movie is
pure artifice but also a contemporary telling of a classic story. I’m not sure
it’s 100 percent effective all the time, or even that it all makes perfect
sense, but it is bold and original, and therefore reason enough to recommend
it.
No comments:
Post a Comment