A Classic Adaptation
October 21, 2012
I wasn't sure that I wanted to see the latest adaptation of Anna Karenina. (SPOILER ALERT!) I've never read Leo Tolstoy's novel, but previous adaptations that I've seen on TV and film have shown it's all too easy for them to descend into depression and hysteria along with the eponymous heroine. However, this version, starring Keira Knightley as Anna, was creative, subtle and beautiful.
The film is 'staged' in a theatre. A bedroom set becomes a real bedroom, the flies become a train platform, office workers doubled as waiters as one scene morphed into another. The transformation seemed to be achieved by moving the scenery or camera angles rather than special effects. Movement also played a part in signalling the change from the theatrical to the real e.g. the balletic stamping of forms and the way Oblonsky changed his coat in his office. During the crucial ballroom scene, the dancers performed a kind of 19th century voguing as they waltzed–beautiful and intriguing–what did the gestures signify? It showed the staginess and artificiality of the ball where being seen was the main aim. The film was beautifully shot and the costumes were gorgeous. Those scenes shot in the open countryside seemed more dreamlike and unreal than the openly artificial theatre.
The cast rose to the challenge of this hybrid adaptation. In particular, Matthew Macfadyen was an engaging Oblonsky who was all too aware of his weaknesses, and Jude Law made Karenin an ambivalent figure for whom the audience has to feel some sympathy. On the whole, it seemed he regarded Anna as a possession and was only concerned with his career and position in society, but there were glimpses of real feeling for her.
Whereas previous adaptations have led me to believe that the novel would probably be tedious this version has provoked so many questions as to the natures of Karenin and Anna, and Russia in this period that now I must read the novel, and I want to see the film again.
The film is 'staged' in a theatre. A bedroom set becomes a real bedroom, the flies become a train platform, office workers doubled as waiters as one scene morphed into another. The transformation seemed to be achieved by moving the scenery or camera angles rather than special effects. Movement also played a part in signalling the change from the theatrical to the real e.g. the balletic stamping of forms and the way Oblonsky changed his coat in his office. During the crucial ballroom scene, the dancers performed a kind of 19th century voguing as they waltzed–beautiful and intriguing–what did the gestures signify? It showed the staginess and artificiality of the ball where being seen was the main aim. The film was beautifully shot and the costumes were gorgeous. Those scenes shot in the open countryside seemed more dreamlike and unreal than the openly artificial theatre.
The cast rose to the challenge of this hybrid adaptation. In particular, Matthew Macfadyen was an engaging Oblonsky who was all too aware of his weaknesses, and Jude Law made Karenin an ambivalent figure for whom the audience has to feel some sympathy. On the whole, it seemed he regarded Anna as a possession and was only concerned with his career and position in society, but there were glimpses of real feeling for her.
Whereas previous adaptations have led me to believe that the novel would probably be tedious this version has provoked so many questions as to the natures of Karenin and Anna, and Russia in this period that now I must read the novel, and I want to see the film again.
Posted by K. S. Dearsley. Posted In : Reviews
