Anna Karenina (2012) R 129 minutes
Based on book, Based on classic literature, British movies, Depressing, Psychological Drama, Emotional, Imaginative, Original, Romance, Sentimental, Thought-provoking
Related Articles
Director: Joe Wright
Cast: Keira Knightley, Jude Law, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Domhnall Gleeson, Alicia Vikander, Matthew Macfadyen, Kelly Macdonald
A lot/Strong : Death, Gore, Nudity, Sensuality
Some/Mild : Alcohol, Drugs, Smoking, Violence
No : Torture
Overall grade: "B"
The Verdict: "Bearable, original at times, but overall unremarkable interpretation of the Tolstoy's classic novel"
Directing: "B", Acting: "B", Visual Effects: "N/A"
Story Line: "B", Aftertaste: "B", Date Movie: "A-"
Family Friendliness: "F", Original Concept: "Yes"
The 2012 Movie “Anna Karenina” featuring world famous stars Keira Knightley and Jude Law is yet another adaptation of the classic novel with the same name completed by Leo Tolstoy in 1877.
The first question that I asked myself even before seeing the movie in the theatre was “Why do we need one more adaptation of “Anna Karenina” when so many worthy interpretations of the timeless novel are readily available to satisfy our curiosity?”
Some of the well-known adaptations of “Anna Karenina” that come to mind are the critically acclaimed 1935 Hollywood movie with Greta Garbo in the title role, the 1948 British version with the divine Vivien Leigh, the 1967 Russian masterpiece that happens to be most authentic and the closest to the text of the original novel, as well as the admittedly weaker attempts, like the 1985 made for TV rendition with great Paul Scofield as Karenin or the 1997 box office failure with Sophie Marceau and Sean Bean.
Between all the numerous big screen efforts as well as multiple British, Russian, and even Cuban TV series, radio dramas, ballets, musicals, and ten operas (!), has there been anything truly new and original left to say about the tragic life of the mysterious Anna Karenina and all those profoundly unlucky individuals who had a terrible misfortune of being close to her - her husband, her lover, and her children?
The trailer for 2012 movie does not take “no” for an answer and boldly announces an intriguing “bold new vision” that the 2012 “Anna Karenina” apparently contains.
After seeing the movie it still remains a mystery to me what kind of “bold new vision” the trailer was exactly referring to. Or was it just another deceiving marketing gimmick? It was probably the latter, since a truly visionary movie has no need to explicitly spell it out in a large font in a trailer.
It is not that the 2012 “Anna Karenina” is a bad movie. In fact, it is more than bearable and even contains a small number of interesting accents as well as certain notable scenes, some of which are rarely included in the big screen adaptations.
Nevertheless, the overall amount of the groundbreaking material that the 2012 “Anna Karenina” offers to our attention is not even remotely enough to justify yet another attempt to bring the Tolstoy’s novel to the big screen. In addition, the movie features some questionable cost-cutting production decisions that only aggravate the overall lack of authenticity quite noticeable in the 2012 version.
Summing it up, contrary to the promises made in a trailer, what was good in the 2012 movie was not bold or new, and what was bold or new was not so good.
The acting in the movie, while overall acceptable, was again not strong enough to warrant creating one more “Anna Karenina” big screen adaptation. Movie enthusiasts hoping to see some fresh thought-provoking interpretations or a deep insight into the Tolstoy’s characters would most likely be disappointed by the acting performances.
To those who admired Keira Knightley's performance as Anna Karenina I would simply suggest comparing it with some truly remarkable performances from the past.
Why is that when I watch Vivien Leigh as Anna Karenina, I completely believe that she is a Russian aristocrat and a member of the highest society circle and the Keira Knightley’s acting strikes me as completely inauthentic?
Obviously, Vivien Leigh with her aristocratic upbringing and noble beauty was a natural choice for the role. I do not think that one needs to be a high aristocrat to notice something equally obvious - Keira Knightley's performance, while admittedly stylish, does not have anything even remotely aristocratic in it.
When her Anna exchanges glances with her love interest, Count Vronsky (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), they look more like two unsophisticated youngsters lustfully winking at each other in a bar, than refined members of two grand aristocratic families taken aback by the forbidden but irresistibly luring feelings towards each other dangerously quickly arising in their hearts.
On the positive side, the 2012 movie avoided a regrettable mistake made in many of the “Anna Karenina” adaptations – furnishing the Count Vronksy character with a deeper, more sophisticated, more mature, and overall more attractive personality that he actually possesses in the Tolstoy’s novel.
Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s Count Vronsky is almost a perfect match for the novel’s character - a charmingly shallow womanizer, a deeply immoral playboy, and a superficial person in general - a spoiled brat who enjoyed “decoying a girl with no intentions of marrying her” which apparently was “one of the evil actions common among brilliant young men as himself.”
Jude Law’s performance as Anna’s unloved and ultimately deceived husband is a mixed bag. On one hand, his acting is one of the best in the movie. On the other hand, if you compare his Karenin with the earlier interpretations by Nikolai Gritsenko(1967), Ralph Richardson (1948), Paul Skolfield (1985), or Basil Rathbone(1935), the outcome in my opinion will be not in favor of Jude Law whose performance would be suddenly perceived as lacking both depth and substance.
Despite being mostly critical in my review, I still find myself happy that the 2012 “Anna Karenina” actually happened and received a considerable publicity.
First, as I mentioned before, the movie has certain strengths, including better than usual insight into the Vronsky’s character and deep and detailed enough depiction of the relationship between Levin and Kitty, in the solid performances of Domhnall Gleeson and Alicia Vikander respectively.
However, the main reason for my favorable disposition towards the 2012 “Anna Karenina” is my conviction that in the search for a true value of this movie we should look outside of the high art dimension and focus more on its utilitarian role - an important cultural role the movie could play by unobtrusively educating the younger generations of moviegoers.
Let us be reasonable - with all the easily digestible nonsensical popcorn blockbusters written by illiterate but prolific Hollywood mediocrities, who from the Millennial generation in their right mind would decide to watch the black and white 1935 “Anna Karenina” with Greta Garbo not to mention the 1967 Russian version, even if the English subtitles for it are readily available on YouTube?
However, if you widely announce a new adaption with an intriguing “bold new vision”, add to the mix the world-famous stars like Keira Knightley and Jude Law and cleverly market the movie to the target audience, a chance that some Millennial or even someone from Generation X would become interested in the timeless story of poor Anna Karenina would suddenly jump from a hopeless absolute zero to a small, but statistically significant number.
In conclusion, while I cannot call the 2012 “Anna Karenina” a must-see movie, I still believe that watching it would be beneficial for most of us.
Those who have read the original Tolstoy’s novel or have seen the earlier “Anna Karenina” interpretations would satisfy their understandable curiosity. Those who have no idea who Anna Karenina is and what the movie is all about, will get a rare opportunity to repair an educational gap in a quite entertaining way.
