Anna Karenina Review
by James Berardinelli (berardin AT bc DOT cybernex DOT net)May 6th, 1997
ANNA KARENINA
A film review by James Berardinelli
Copyright 1997 James Berardinelli
RATING (0 TO 10): 5.5
Alternative Scale: ** out of ****
United States, 1997
U.S. Release Date: 5/2/97 (limited)
Running Length: 1:48
MPAA Classification: PG-13 (Mature themes, sex)
Theatrical Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Cast: Sophie Marceau, Sean Bean, Alfred Molina, Mia Kirshner, James Fox, Fiona Shaw
Director: Bernard Rose
Producer: Bruce Davey
Screenplay: Bernard Rose based on the novel by Leo Tolstoy Cinematography: Daryn Okada
Music: Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, and Prokofiev
U.S. Distributor: Warner Brothers
LEO TOLSTOY'S ANNA KARENINA, Bernard Rose's (IMMORTAL BELOVED) attempt to bring the great Russian novel to the screen, is, in its own way, as flawed and unsuccessful as its illustrious predecessors. As an unabashed fan of the novel, I have never been impressed by Hollywood's tepid attempts to film it. Even with luminaries like Greta Garbo and Vivien Leigh in the title role, the stripped-down story has barely resembled its inspiration, looking instead like an overplotted, costume melodrama. ANNA KARENINA is not unfilmable (a 10-part BBC mini-series made during the '70s was quite good), but, given the time constraints of a theatrical feature, it's next-to-impossible to make an effective adaptation. Rose's brave-but-disappointing attempt reinforces this belief. 400,000 words cannot be condensed into two hours.
The storyline for ANNA KARENINA is widely-known, so I won't spend much time recapping it here. The title character, Anna (Sophie Marceau) is a vibrant, young Russian noblewoman trapped in a passionless marriage with a much older man, Karenin (James Fox). She begins a disastrous love affair with a dashing army officer, Count Vronsky (Sean Bean). Ultimately, the liaison threatens to destroy four lives: Anna's, Karenin's, Vronsky's, and that of Anna's young son. This story unfolds in parallel with the less tragic ordeal of another Russian couple: brooding Konstantine Levin (Alfred Molina) and flighty Kitty Shcherbatsky (Mia Kirshner). Levin is desperately in love with Kitty, but she is indifferent to his attention, preferring instead to concentrate on men like Vronsky.
Rose's boldest stroke in this version is to leave in the Kitty/Levin subplot, rather than excising it (which is what happens in most adaptations). This decision is two-edged. While retaining Levin's story provides the overall tale with greater balance and depth, it eats up valuable time and dilutes the focus. What works in the book doesn't necessarily succeed on screen, and the result is a choppy and uneven motion picture. In fact, everything in ANNA KARENINA races by in a blur. Character development is almost nonexistent as time pressure forces Rose to push on without giving the audience an opportunity to digest what's happening or get into the protagonists' heads. There are times when ANNA KARENINA seems not like a filmed version of the Cliffnotes, but of the abridged Cliffnotes.
I have several casting quibbles, as well. French actress Sophie Marceau (BRAVEHEART) is a cool, regal beauty -- not the right type at all to play the hot-blooded, passionate Anna. Marceau is a good actress, but she's wrong for this role, and her icy rendering of Anna leaves viewers largely unconcerned about the fate of the character. Likewise, Mia Kirshner (EXOTICA) as Kitty and Alfred Molina (THE PEREZ FAMILY) as Levin are miscast. Kirshner's North American accent is out- of-place, and Molina never properly captures Levin's deep-rooted melancholy. Sean Bean (GOLDENEYE) fares somewhat better as Vronsky, although there are times when his performance is on the stiff side. The only truly successful job is turned in by James Fox (THE REMAINS OF THE DAY), who essays a sympathetic and entirely human Karenin.
Despite the problems with story, characterization, and acting, ANNA KARENINA is far from a complete bust. Visually, it's nothing less than stunning (with outside locations filmed in Russia) -- the most eye- catching motion picture since Kenneth Branagh's HAMLET. Ballroom interiors, landscapes, and even close-ups of faces leave the viewer entranced. At one point during the movie, when Karenin remarks, "There's so much splendor here. One's eyes are bedazzled," he might have been talking about the look of the film. The soundtrack, which features the work of Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, and Prokofiev, is equally arresting.
Had the script for ANNA KARENINA matched the production values, this movie would have been a rousing success, but that's not the case. Once, near the very end, as a broken Vronsky reflects on what has transpired, the movie finally allows us to feel for a character, but, as the saying goes, it's too little, too late. LEO TOLSTOY'S ANNA KARENINA has its good points, but there's nothing here to warrant such an extravagant remake. For anyone who really wants to enjoy the story, with its rich characters, stimulating ideas, and wrenching tragedy, a copy of the paperback book should cost about as much as a movie ticket, and will provide a more lasting and worthwhile investment.
- James Berardinelli
e-mail: [email protected]
ReelViews web site: http://www.cybernex.net/~berardin
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
