“Anna Karenina” (2012)

“Anna Karenina” (2012):

"My, How Those Russians Dance!"

At what point is a story too antiquated to be considered relevant in any which way or form? Some would argue that when it comes to politics, war, or love a story can transcend time and in many circumstances this is true as people are people from one time period to another and most stories are,
at their core, about people. “Anna Karenina” (2012) most certainly challenges that concept in it’s latest film adaptation. A lot.
First off, it should be said that this film has been made again and again throughout the history of the medium, first being produced as a silent film in 1910 and recently in 1997 with Sophie Marceau (Braveheart) and Sean Bean ( a lot). The story is that of Anna Karenina (Keira Knightley), part of the Russian aristocracy in the twilight of the Russian empire where the rules of class still cling to the people like their gorgeous dresses and coats. Karenina is at the outset happily married to Karenin (Jude Law) an official in the Russian Church. Together they have a child who largely embodies Karenina’s argument to stay with her husband yet is otherwise of little signifigance. Shortly into the film Karenina meets and quickly falls in love with Count Vronsky (Aaron Taylor - Johnson), a cavalryman and aristocrat from Moscow. The two begin a steamy affair which, they soon realize, may ruin them both. Meanwhile the love story of Levin (Domhnall Gleeson) and Kitty (Alicia Vikander) plays in the background as they experience their own trials and tribulations of love. Yet this is a brief glimpse into the film’s soul and is far from the whole of the plot. In short, explaining all this is tedious, gossipy, and, truth be told, somewhat boring and incomplete as the plot is so rich and detailed that one cannot possibly consume it on first viewing. Stoppard adamantly tries to condense Toslstoy’s rich plot down to it’s most finite elements. However, the sheer number of characters and political interactions in the film make keeping everything together challenging and ultimately make the film dissatisfying and leaving the viewer somewhat befuddled as to the intricacies of the story. It should be said that the film brilliantly tells the story of Karenina and invites the viewer in for brief glimpses into her mind yet ultimately should have either spent more time explaining what exactly was happening or, rather, condensed the story to it’s more meaningful bits. 
I should point out however, I have not read the book and to those who have read the book this may be the perfect film for them so, if this is true, then all the more power to you to see this film. However this goes against one of my basic principals of adaptations which is, simply put; one should not have had to have read the book to understand the movie. 
For those interested in visuals however, this film is a rare treat. Set, for large portions of the film, on a stage or around the stage (in the audience, in the lobby, above the stage etc.) the film gives some amazing shots and visuals. Using world class cinematography and tracking shots in somewhat new and definitely innovative ways, the film utilizes the concept of theatricality in the story not only through it’s script but also directly through extended visual metaphors that give the audience a film where they are always acutely aware of the absolute and sometimes absurd theatricality of Russian politics and romance. In many senses, the most down to earth scenes, the ones out in the country, appear to be less visually interesting despite their gorgeous use of color and landscape when compared to the use of the stage as well as the many fabulous painted pieces which, from afar grand and realistic beyond belief yet, like the character’s themselves, on closer inspection far more malevolent than expected. To be honest, trying to describe the surrealist cinematography in this film is difficult and silly as the film is, in a sense, too fantastic for words.
This film’s costuming is fantastic as well. Delivering amazing pieces laden with fantastic furs and pearls, the film will not cease to dazzle the eye as seemingly in every scene Knightly wears more and more gorgeous dresses. Perhaps the most amazing exhibition of the fashion is during the ballroom scene where Karenina is first romantically encountered with Vronsky who rejects Kitty in favor of Karenina. During the amazingly intricate dances the women show off their fabulous dresses. Again, this is an aspect of the film difficult to describe so writing about it does little good.
The acting in this film is standard fare for Oscar season performances with delightful individual performances by Jude Law and Matthew Macfadyen as Oblonsky who create two of the more realistic characters in this film filled with charters I, for the most part, had a difficult time connecting with. When the film came Knightly, though delivering a powerful and commanding performance, fails to persuade the audience that she is at all worth anybody’s sympathy and seems more silly than anything in retrospect. The same can be said of Vronsky who comes across as winey and childish.
Maybe this film is brilliant for those who read the book and maybe for some it is the epitome of romance, yet for me, aside from the visuals, the film was unremarkable and in some ways easily forgettable; lacking the meaning or power that this film could have very easily commanded had it made itself more accessible to the lay man.

Stars: 8.5/10