Anna Karenina
Director: Joe Wright
Country of Origin: United States
Year Produced: 2012
Cast: Kiera Knightley, Jude Law, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Domhnall Gleeson, Alicia Vikander
Where to Watch: Amazon Prime Video
Synopsis: In 19th-century Imperial Russia, high-society member Anna Karenina (Kiera Knightley), married to Alexi Karenin (Jude Law), enters into a love affair with a dashing cavalry officer, Count Vronsky (Aaron Taylor-Johnson). In order to remain with her son, Anna must abide by Karenin’s rules—or, she could follow Vronsky, cause an even bigger stir in society, and never see her son again. As a second plotline, Levin (Domhnall Gleeson) is in love with the young and lovely Kitty (Alicia Vikander), but she only has eyes for Count Vronsky.
***WARNING: This film review does contain references to spoilers. Read at your own risk.***
Adaptations into film are often controversial. Time forces writers to condense the story, and it is difficult to match every detail while still maintaining the illusion of uniqueness. At the same time, fans can get upset easily when details are omitted or re-written for one reason or another. Anna Karenina (2012) is an interesting case. The adaptation is beautifully artistic, which suits the story told in Tolstoy’s masterpiece. It is not a style of cinema that everyone will enjoy. If you have never read the novel, there will likely be gaps in the story and emotion. However, one can still appreciate the objectively good writing, acting, cinematography, set and costume design, and original soundtrack. If you have read the novel, it only adds to the overall experience.
The film is initially confusing, even after recently finishing the novel. There are a lot of cuts and transitions to characters and themes that haven’t been properly introduced. Additionally, the artistic style of the film is difficult to grasp. “Why does every scene occur in the same building?” you might ask. But, a few minutes into the film, it becomes clear that the directors intended to create: a bold fusion of theater and film, which metaphorically represents 19th-century high-society in Russia. Again, without the context of the novel, it would be difficult to understand the minute details of each scene, in all its condensed complexity. The lack of internal thoughts makes it difficult to understand characters, particularly Levin, who is extremely philosophical. Levin is also less concerned with soteriology and his spiritual salvation; though this is due in part to the condensing of his character arc and the lack of religious themes in the film. Most notably, there is a shallowness to Kitty and Levin’s story that runs parallel to Vronsky and Anna’s. However, the film does still manage to convey some of the theme of family, which is important to the story considering Tolstoy’s introduction to the novel. Though much information is cut, the film does well hitting most key moments and explaining them well. The movie asks questions such as, “Does love sanctify criminal folly? Who is right?” and makes viewers wonder, “If I were in the same situation, would I do the same?”
The casting and acting contributes well to the emotional effect the story has on viewers. In general, the actors do a fine job portraying their characters; Count Vronsky carries himself like a military man with a clear air of moral superiority, and Anna is energetic, like her novel counterpart. Viewers can feel the tension and longing when Anna and Vronsky look at each other. Levin is awkward, yet kind, and determined to pursue the one he loves. One difference that makes the movie stand out from the novel is the humanization of Karenin through visuals, since novel Karenin is largely portrayed through Anna’s heavily biased eyes. Viewers can see the pain and emotion subtly hidden in Karenin’s expressions, portraying him as a victim to be pitied rather than the one who denied Anna love and pushed her towards the affair. Overall, the portrayal of characters, whether directly taken from the novel or with a new twist, gives this film emotion and more meaning, as viewers can easily put themselves into the character’s shoes. Anna is faced with a difficult choice, where she can abide by society’s laws and stay with her son or continue her affair. The internal conflict tears Anna apart, which viewers can clearly see through the acting, sending her into a spiraling descent of desperation and madness as it does in the novel. Like the novel to its readers, viewers of the film are forced in their minds to either reconcile love and law, or pick just one.
Other elements distinct to the film, such as camerawork, original soundtrack, and set and costume design, have a unique impact on the film as a whole and help viewers understand what may be going on inside the character’s minds. One example is the awkwardness in the centered shot that shows Anna and Karenin in their carriage right before Anna admits the truth, capturing the tension between husband and wife. The camerawork, however, does have an intense focus on expressions, displaying many moments of lengthy, overly-dramatic staring. The music composed by Dario Marianelli, is extremely fitting and well-written. Most of the soundtrack mimics the late-Romantic period of music, known for carrying a lot of emotional weight, like the tragedy of Anna Karenina. One example is the waltz during the ball that accelerates and becomes more dissonant while tension builds between Kitty’s jealousy and Anna and Vronsky’s dancing. A music box version of that same waltz plays while Anna is trying to sleep, implying that she is thinking about her dance with Vronsky. Though Anna’s son Seryozha is largely forgotten in both the film and the novel, the set design of his “room” is completely empty except for his bed, representing the empty sadness he feels without his mother around. For costuming, Anna wears a dark red dress as she rides the train for the last time, representing her anger and hatred for everyone even though her thoughts are not explicitly revealed as they are in the novel. These small details truly add up to create this artistic masterpiece.
The writing of this film in general is well thought-out and full of impactful moments. It is largely serious and emotional, but elements of humor are thrown in brilliantly to interpose the rising tension, giving the audience a break. Foreshadowing is ever-present as it is in the novel; for example, cutting to the speeding train as Anna dances with Vronsky, Anna playing with the blocks she used to spell Vronsky’s name, and Vronsky’s horse Frou-Frou representing Anna herself. With meaningful dialogue, foreshadowing, moral dilemmas, and even humor, it is clear that the writers cared about the film and wanted to capture the essence of the novel, however difficult it would be.
Ultimately, this film is an amazing and artistic adaptation of Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina. Condensed from the novel, there is definitely not enough time in the film to include all the events and details from the original story, but it is more than enough to keep the audience invested in the story. Concepts and ideas that normally couldn’t be conveyed through the screen are shown in various creative ways. Through writing, acting, design, music, and cinematography, this adaptation is an experience that won’t be forgotten easily, just like the novel.
Russian Literature on Screen 