Anna Karenia - Film Review
Aug. 18th, 2013 06:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1) Just finished watching Anna Karenina - directed by Joe Wright and featuring Keira Knightly (who also did Atonement and Pride and Prejudice with Wright). Of the three - this film is by far the most ambitious and haunting visually. Even if the story barely held my interest - but that's hardly Wright's fault so much as Tolstoy and Stoppard's. Tom Stoppard wrote the script based on Tolstoy's novel, and as an aside, I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that I am not a fan of Tom Stoppard's writing. This film has the same plodding pacing and stilted dialogue as Parade's End. If it weren't for the visuals, I'd have gone to sleep - much as I do whenever I attempt to watch Parade's End.
Anyhow...it is interesting film. It is filmed partly in an Opera House and partly outside.
At times it feels as if you are watching an Opera. There's an almost inexplicable surreal feel to the film - that is reminiscent of Luis Buneal and Fellini.
See the clip below - which is the dancing scene - when Anna and Count Vronsky first interact. He was supposed to be courting Anna's neice, Kitty. This is an example of how the director uses music, dance, and freezing the action to present an layered emotional sequence without the benefit of any dialogue.
Note how the director freezes dancers, and depicts how others change partners, but Anna and Vronksy forget everyone but each other - as if everyone else is frozen.
And much later in the film, here's an example of how the director switches between the framing of an opera house and the outdoors. Often bringing the outdoors inside the opera house. In a horse race sequence, the horses are running on a outdoor track with dirt and grass yet also on spectacle in the opera house, running across the stage. Confined and restrained, much as Anna herself feels confined and restrained. When we are Vronsky's pov, we are outside, when we are in Anna's and her husband's - we are inside the opera house.
While this use of visuals is quite remarkable and stunning, it unfortunately does not make up for the slow pacing of the film - which appears to drag. It would be one thing if I didn't know what was going to happen, but you'd have to be living under a literary rock not to know that Anna Karenina is a tragedy. Also, Anna herself is not quite likable - not sure if that's Knightly's portrayal or the character. I felt rather sorry for the two men, which admittedly could be Tolstoy. Tolstoy wasn't exactly a proponent of women's rights nor for that matter was his time period.
In short, pretty film with astonishing visuals, but boring story. Can see why it got nominated for art direction, set design, score, and costumes. But it did remind me why I've never felt an aching need to read Anna Karenina.
2. Also been marathoning Scandal - and it is a fun tv show. Sort of like watching The West Wing meets House of Cards on Crack. A satirical take on both series in some respects. And quite hilarious in places, with lots of fun OMG - I can't believe they actually did THAT moments. Difficult to explain if you've never watched it. Suffice it to say, it's a tv series that doesn't take itself or its subject matter all that seriously - which makes a lot of fun to watch. (Too many tv series do.)
Hard show to explain - because it well breaks a lot of rules, such as I'm still not exactly sure what the heroine does for a living. But, as critic Alan Sepinwall stated, that doesn't really matter. Best description I can come up with - is she's a political fix-it or cover-up specialist. She cleans up or covers up breaking political scandals, so power doesn't switch hands. For example? if someone claims to be pregnant by the President, Olivia Pope will investigate it and ensure the President is protected. She's a bit of an anti-hero, as are all the main characters in this series. But unlike Damages or some of the other anti-hero series - this one appears to have a sense of humor. It's only tv after all, lighten up.
The other wonderful thing about Shondra Rhimes series is they have diverse casting - ie. the people don't look alike, nor are they all pretty and skinny from Models Inc. Tony Goldwyn, of all people, is playing the leading man/anti-hero - love of Olivia's life. And he's actually extremely good in the role. They do have chemistry. I was admittedly not convinced at first. Plus, the heroine is Kerry Washington, a POC. Rare thing that. Less rare now than previously.
Rhimes deals with race and gender issues better than most. She doesn't get preachy about them, nor moralistic, but she does acknowledge them and often comically. She reminds me a little bit of Mel Brooks in that regard.
The writers also play with how we perceive power and how people use and abuse power. Lightly satirizes and makes fun of it, all the while having a blast exploding soap opera tropes along the way. Enjoying the heck out of this series. New favorite summertime marathon show after Orphan Black.
Anyhow...it is interesting film. It is filmed partly in an Opera House and partly outside.
At times it feels as if you are watching an Opera. There's an almost inexplicable surreal feel to the film - that is reminiscent of Luis Buneal and Fellini.
See the clip below - which is the dancing scene - when Anna and Count Vronsky first interact. He was supposed to be courting Anna's neice, Kitty. This is an example of how the director uses music, dance, and freezing the action to present an layered emotional sequence without the benefit of any dialogue.
Note how the director freezes dancers, and depicts how others change partners, but Anna and Vronksy forget everyone but each other - as if everyone else is frozen.
And much later in the film, here's an example of how the director switches between the framing of an opera house and the outdoors. Often bringing the outdoors inside the opera house. In a horse race sequence, the horses are running on a outdoor track with dirt and grass yet also on spectacle in the opera house, running across the stage. Confined and restrained, much as Anna herself feels confined and restrained. When we are Vronsky's pov, we are outside, when we are in Anna's and her husband's - we are inside the opera house.
While this use of visuals is quite remarkable and stunning, it unfortunately does not make up for the slow pacing of the film - which appears to drag. It would be one thing if I didn't know what was going to happen, but you'd have to be living under a literary rock not to know that Anna Karenina is a tragedy. Also, Anna herself is not quite likable - not sure if that's Knightly's portrayal or the character. I felt rather sorry for the two men, which admittedly could be Tolstoy. Tolstoy wasn't exactly a proponent of women's rights nor for that matter was his time period.
In short, pretty film with astonishing visuals, but boring story. Can see why it got nominated for art direction, set design, score, and costumes. But it did remind me why I've never felt an aching need to read Anna Karenina.
2. Also been marathoning Scandal - and it is a fun tv show. Sort of like watching The West Wing meets House of Cards on Crack. A satirical take on both series in some respects. And quite hilarious in places, with lots of fun OMG - I can't believe they actually did THAT moments. Difficult to explain if you've never watched it. Suffice it to say, it's a tv series that doesn't take itself or its subject matter all that seriously - which makes a lot of fun to watch. (Too many tv series do.)
Hard show to explain - because it well breaks a lot of rules, such as I'm still not exactly sure what the heroine does for a living. But, as critic Alan Sepinwall stated, that doesn't really matter. Best description I can come up with - is she's a political fix-it or cover-up specialist. She cleans up or covers up breaking political scandals, so power doesn't switch hands. For example? if someone claims to be pregnant by the President, Olivia Pope will investigate it and ensure the President is protected. She's a bit of an anti-hero, as are all the main characters in this series. But unlike Damages or some of the other anti-hero series - this one appears to have a sense of humor. It's only tv after all, lighten up.
The other wonderful thing about Shondra Rhimes series is they have diverse casting - ie. the people don't look alike, nor are they all pretty and skinny from Models Inc. Tony Goldwyn, of all people, is playing the leading man/anti-hero - love of Olivia's life. And he's actually extremely good in the role. They do have chemistry. I was admittedly not convinced at first. Plus, the heroine is Kerry Washington, a POC. Rare thing that. Less rare now than previously.
Rhimes deals with race and gender issues better than most. She doesn't get preachy about them, nor moralistic, but she does acknowledge them and often comically. She reminds me a little bit of Mel Brooks in that regard.
The writers also play with how we perceive power and how people use and abuse power. Lightly satirizes and makes fun of it, all the while having a blast exploding soap opera tropes along the way. Enjoying the heck out of this series. New favorite summertime marathon show after Orphan Black.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-08-18 10:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-08-18 11:30 pm (UTC)I would say Vronsky is a strikingly handsome guy in the book, though definitely older than Kitty. He's both close to an old-fashioned cad and close to a modern Rock star with his groupies. He isn't exactly aware enough of what he's doing to others to be evil, but he doesn't care either.
Yes, I'd say if Karenin (the husband) is sympathetic it's a change.
no subject
Date: 2013-08-19 01:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-08-19 10:42 pm (UTC)Karenin is portrayed sympathetically - you do feel very sorry for him in the movie. Jude Law is almost unrecognizable in the part and brilliant. It's a change of pace for him, he normally plays the Vronsky characters.
no subject
Date: 2013-08-18 11:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-08-19 10:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-08-19 08:25 am (UTC)In many ways it is also a funny book, no matter the ending. The russians often manage to do this untragic tragedy? Where death is just an end to life but it is not the big point.
no subject
Date: 2013-08-19 10:46 pm (UTC)Found the story in the film to be slow and frustrating, difficult to care about and far from funny, angsty yes, funny no. That said, it is a beautiful film with excellent visuals. And Jude Law is exceptional in it.
no subject
Date: 2013-08-20 11:38 am (UTC)Book Anna has a lot more personality in a way, as do the other characters.
Like you I thought the visuals were stunning, but everything else was meh.
The book is also slow, but sometimes I love that. I think that this need to be kept on the edge of the seat by the writer sometimes makes us lose other qualities in literature. Sometimes I read pages and pages and don't know what all this prattle is for and then suddenly it falls into one subtly painted picture. And the book is funny in many places. It's not a "funny" book of course, but then it does not really fit the comedy/tragedy distinction.
no subject
Date: 2013-08-20 09:07 pm (UTC)I've discovered that makes all the difference. Cactus_watcher above noted how the humor in many Russian novels doesn't translate well into English, unless you have a really good translator.
(I haven't read Karenina, but also keep in mind I only can read in two languages, English, and French, and my French is mediocre at best.)
no subject
Date: 2013-08-21 07:32 am (UTC)And it helps that my husband speaks a bit of Russian and is a Polish native, so he is often able to fill in some blanks about Polish and Russian literature. Also about how certain things are written between the lines, which seems to be a very specific form of art in Russia.
no subject
Date: 2013-08-19 02:18 pm (UTC)This. It's just sort of a fun TV Show. (Though I did have the fun of discussing it one day with a co-worker who also watches and with a co-worker who doesn't, so you get great reactions from the one who didn't to things like --
Me or Co-Worker who views: "Can you believe that President did _______
Non-viewer: "What? Seriously?"
Me or Co-Worker who views: Oh that's nothing. There was the time the Chief of Staff and his husband --
Non-viewer: HIS husband?
Me or C-WwV: Oh, yeah, sure.
Me of Co-Worker: Oh, that's nothing, all of them did ___________
Non-Viewer: Wait, this is a TV show?
no subject
Date: 2013-08-19 10:37 pm (UTC)I just finished watching the episode where they've figured out the mole is the head of the CIA. Meanwhile, the President has asked a former friend and colleague to spy on Olivia for him - mainly because of what Olivia, his wife, the chief of staff and the supreme court justice did to ensure he won the election.
One of the funniest scenes that I've seen to date is the one where the Chief of Staff and his husband both strip until they are both completely naked to prove neither is wearing a wire.
This thing is so much fun. And not frustrating. So many tv series are frustrating. There's a cathartic thrill that it's willing to do what it does. Makes Dallas and JR Ewing look sort of wimpy and dull in comparison. (Although being a long time daytime soap opera watcher, I always found Dallas to be a bit on the dull and wimpy side of the fence.)