Skip to main content

It would be a sin to help you destroy yourself.


Anna Karenina
(2012)

Unfortunately, I haven’t read the greatest novel ever written. I’m such an uncultured ignoramus that I haven’t read any Tolstoy, let alone in untranslated form (one simply must, in order to savour his nuances). This should be neither here nor there when it comes to appreciation of a film version. Ultimately, it will be for those familiar with a text or other source material; deviation tends to be regarded somewhere between creatively inadvisable and outright sacrilegious.

With Joe Wright’s Anna Karenina there are additional problems with approaching it as a distinct work in its own right, as he embraces a purposefully distracting (at least initially) artifice by setting much of the melodrama in and around a stage. Wright has argued that this highlights the theatrical fakery of the Russian aristocracy, but we know that’s really bullshit. It’s because (a) he couldn’t get the money together for an outright 19th century epic and (b) he fancies himself as an auteur wont to make such idiosyncratic choices. Hey, if he fails at least he can claim it was a brave and misunderstood choice.

Ultimately the problems with his film, coming from an unversed layman untutored in the world of the Russian novel, have little to do with his stylistic choices, however. Mostly they relate to his singular failure to allow the audience to identify with the central characters. This is, likely, partly an issue of casting; I have seen many comments singling Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s Vronsky in particular as a misstep. Certainly, Taylor-Johnson has revealed himself as very much a “hair” actor this year; what with his bleach blonde here and dreads in Savages.

But my greater problem is with Karenina herself. I was consistently conscious of how little insight is provided into the choices made by Keira Knightley’s Anna. Vronksy is a blank slate, almost as if there was zero interest in fleshing him out, but surely the title character shouldn’t be quite so undernourished that her long-suffering husband Karenin seems like an absolute saint? Don’t you, as director, have a responsibility to ensure your audience at least becomes involved with the fate of the main protagonist?

I’m hesitant to say Knightley is miscast for reasons of ignorance of the source material, but she didn’t seem the perfect fit of her earlier Wright literary collaboration, Pride & Prejudice. Part of the blame for the failure to make us care for the leads must go to Tom Stoppard, as the adaptor of the novel. Stoppard has delivered screen work both triumphant (Brazil, Shakespeare in Love, the recent Parade’s End) and middling (most of the rest), and this definitely falls into the latter category. We are not invited to understand her choices; she seems selfish and transitory, rushing after a vacuous pretty boy, leaving her child and showing no remorse towards her husband. Are we expected to shed a conciliatory tear when high society spurns her?

Karenin, meanwhile, may be a stuffy intellectual but he is shown to respond to her whims in a measured and fair fashion until she waves her affair in his face one time too often. If Wright is iffy in his choice of leads, he is bang on casting Law. I’ve had an about turn regarding the actor in the past few years as he has made the transition from vain leading duties to supporting parts showing the extent of his talent. Balding, bespectacled and bearded, Law is suitably “propped” visually, but this is one of the best things he’s done on the big screen. It’s interesting to see him become something of an elder statesman here, surrounded by juniors both in age and acting chops. The other prop acting is the curious choice by Wright to focus on Karenin’s use of 19th century johnnies, which does rather tell you a director is fixating on the trees and missing the wood.

Wright’s decisions over when to permit exteriors appears somewhat arbitrary. Apparently, the only many character seen outside the theatre is Levin (Domhall Gleeson) as he sees the falseness of the artistocracy and distances himself from them. Thus, we see him working away in fields of wheat (cue Love and Death). Yet, I could have sworn exterior establishing shots are used for scenes involving Anna and others (and were the country house scenes all filmed at Shepperton; the level of artifice appeared to wax and wane?) This goes to muddy the point Wright is making. More of a concern in general is that it’s a distracting device, even when Wright pulls off dazzling visual coups. The director has his work cut out for him as it is trying to make these characters work, let alone piling on the disassociation.

When his flourishes succeed, they make a strong impression; the horseracing scene is gripping, and the moment where Anna flees her husband, finding herself with Vronsky seconds later as she hurries to him through a garden maze, is a bravura sleight of hand. Wright also steals effectively from himself during the ball sequence, as Anna and Vronsky find themselves alone in the room, so caught up with each other are they (the director did the same thing in Pride & Prejudice). Wright’s a talented director, but he borders on the pretentious in his desire to make the literary trendy. It’s telling that his best film is the one with the least illusions, 2011’s action flick Hanna.

It's little surprise that this has been nominated chiefly in technical categories at the Oscars. That's the problem; all the attention has gone on the production design, costumes and camera work at the expense of the tale itself. 

It’s the pervading lack of depth that does the most damage. Supporting characters are insufficiently integrated; Macfadyen is charismatically mustachioed whenever he appears but this is too infrequent. Strong as Gleeson is, Stoppard appears to be paying lip service to including the character; the intellectual discussions of class don’t seem to involve either Stoppard or Wright. So it’s left to arena of sexual propriety to explore the high society and its values. And, as mentioned, this fails because the characters aren’t there.

At some point I’m sure Joe Wright will make a truly great film. Hanna was close, but both Atonement and The Soloist were patchy affairs. His Pride & Prejudice is a much more satisfying adaptation than Anna Karenina. There the choices added vibrancy and freshness to the much-filmed novel. With Anna Karenina, he appears to have over-thought his visual language and under-honed his cast. The result is sporadically engrossing but ultimately uneven and rather shallow; it’s a film that becomes about the window dressing rather than the story and characters.

***

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Believe me, Mr Bond, I could shoot you from Stuttgart und still create ze proper effect.

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
(SPOILERS) Some of the reactions to Spectre would have you believe it undoes all the “good” work cementing Daniel Craig’s incarnation of Bond in Skyfall. If you didn’t see that picture as the second coming of the franchise (I didn’t) your response to the latest may not be so harsh, despite its less successful choices (Blofeld among them). And it isn’t as if one step, forward two steps back are anything new in perceptions of the series (or indeed hugely divisive views on what even constitutes a decent Bond movie). After the raves greeting Goldeneye, Pierce Brosnan suffered a decidedly tepid response to his second outing, Tomorrow Never Dies, albeit it was less eviscerated than Craig’s sophomore Quantum of Solace. Tomorrow’s reputation disguises many strong points, although it has to be admitted that a Moore-era style finale and a floundering attempt to package in a halcyon villain aren’t among them.

The Bond series’ flirtations with contemporary relevance have a…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

Remember, you're fighting for this woman's honour – which is probably more than she ever did.

Duck Soup (1933)
(SPOILERS) Not for nothing is Duck Soup acclaimed as one of the greatest comedies ever, and while you’d never hold it against Marx Brothers movies for having little in the way of coherent plotting in – indeed, it’s pretty much essential to their approach – the presence of actual thematic content this time helps sharpen the edges of both their slapstick and their satire.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

On account of you, I nearly heard the opera.

A Night at the Opera (1935)
(SPOILERS) The Marx Brothers head over to MGM, minus one Zeppo, and despite their variably citing A Night at the Opera as their best film, you can see – well, perhaps not instantly, but by about the half-hour mark – that something was undoubtedly lost along the way. It isn’t that there’s an absence of very funny material – there’s a strong contender for their best scene in the mix – but that there’s a lot else too. Added to which, the best of the very funny material can be found during the first half of the picture.

I still think it’s a terrible play, but it makes a wonderful rehearsal.

Room Service (1938)
(SPOILERS) The Marx Brothers step away from MGM for a solitary RKO outing, and a scarcely disguised adaption of a play to boot. Room Service lacks the requisite sense of anarchy and inventiveness of their better (earlier) pictures – even Groucho’s name, Gordon Miller, is disappointingly everyday – but it’s nevertheless an inoffensive time passer.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

This better not be some 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea shit, man.

Underwater (2020)
(SPOILERS) There’s no shame in a quality B-movie, or in an Alien rip-off done well. But it’s nevertheless going to need that something extra to make it truly memorable in its own right. Underwater, despite being scuppered at the box office, is an entirely respectable entry in both those arenas from director William Eubank, but like the recent Life (which, in fairness, had an ending that very nearly elevated it to the truly memorable), it can’t quite go that extra mile, or summon that much needed sliver of inspiration to set it apart.

Goodbye, Mr Chimps.

At the Circus (1939)
(SPOILERS) This is where the brothers sink into their stretch of middling MGM movies, now absent the presence of their major supporter Irving Thalberg; it’s probably for the best this wasn’t called A Day at the Circus, as it would instantly have drawn unflattering comparisons with the earlier MGM pair that gave them their biggest hits. Nevertheless, there’s enough decent material to keep At the Circus fairly sprightly (rather than “fairly ponderous”, as Pauline Kael put it).