This four-hour ExxonMobil Masterpiece Theatre adaptation of the great Tolstoy novel Anna Karenina is not the first and will certainly not be the last film based on this story. Although Anna Karenina is sometimes called the greatest novel ever written, it has not readily given itself over to celluloid. When the screenwriter of the version under review here, Allan Cubitt, was asked whether he had been influenced by previous adaptations of the novel, he responded, “None of them worked for my money, and that was largely because they had failed to play out the Kitty-Levin relationship, which is so crucial to the novel.” The criticism that he offered of “previous adaptations” is consistent with the usual comments by critics of the two best known Hollywood adaptations – an 85 minute 1935 production starring Greta Garbo and a 139 minute 1948 version starring Vivien Leigh. Since the novel is a sprawling, complex epic running about 800 typeset pages, it is impossible to do justice to both of the two major (and one lesser) love stories within the time constraints of a standard Hollywood film. Yet, the greatness of the novel derives in no small part from the contrast between the fiery love affair between Anna Karenina and Count Vronsky and the innocent purity and charming ineptness of the relationship between Kitty and Levin. Eliminating or downplaying the Kitty-Levin liaison, as the two old Hollywood versions did, reduces the story to something akin to a soap opera, albeit a sophisticated soap opera. Two more recent Hollywood versions, a 1985 adaptation starring Jacqueline Bisset at 96 minutes and a 1997 108 minutes version featuring Sophie Morceau, succeeded even less well than the early versions and have received very poor reviews.

There are also four versions currently available produced outside of Hollywood – two from the Brits and two from Russia, although one of the Russian versions hardly qualifies, as it is a ballet version produced by the Kirov Ballet. From the British studios, in addition to the version discussed here, there is a miniseries from 1977 totaling 9 hours and 10 minutes, which certainly ought to provide space for exploring all of the major threads of the story. Most viewers, however, will be unlikely to surrender that amount of time to a single film. I think that if I were starting over in choosing a version to purchase, I might now opt for the 1967 Russian version which is marketed as a 2-DVD set and which comes with a variety of extras. The only national review that I came across for the Russian film version gave it a strong endorsement.

Historical Context: Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910) lived a remarkable life – several different lives in a way. He was born into the aristocracy, living on an estate called “Clear Glade” south of Moscow. He was orphaned at age nine and was thereafter raised by relatives and educated by tutors. Entering the University of Kazan, he was more interested in dissipation than his studies in languages and law. He left the University in 1847 to manage the estate which had just then become his official inheritance. It included over 2000 acres and 233 adult male serfs. More than 90% of Russians during this time period were still serfs bonded to the land of the nobility. They were uneducated, lived in squalid poverty, engaged in back-breaking work from dawn to dusk, and were subject to arbitrary justice and beatings for “training and discipline.” Serfs were not allowed to travel beyond their local community or to seek alternative means of support. Tolstoy was disgusted by what he observed as their sorry lot and tried to improve conditions, though some of his idealistic initiatives backfired. He had his greatest success in establishing schools for the children of the peasants and wrote some worthy texts and fiction for children. He studied progressive schools elsewhere in Europe and introduced innovative methods to create a relaxed atmosphere conducive to learning.

Tolstoy married in 1862 to Sonya Behrs and the first fifteen years of their marriage were the most contented and productive of Tolstoy’s life. The publication of his great novel War and Peace began in 1865 in serial fashion. The concept of the novel that became Anna Karenina began gestating in his mind as early as 1870, but in was not until 1873, after reading some stories by Pushkin, that he found the inspiration to begin the opening pages. Within a year, however, he had written a big chunk of the novel. It was published, again in serial form, between 1874 and 1877. Part way through this creative burst, Tolstoy began to fall into depression and existential crisis, leading to a period in his life known as his “conversion.” Struggling with issues of the meaning of life, Tolstoy revisited his religious believes, broke away from the Russian Orthodox Church, and created his own form of Christianity based on nonviolence, rejection of authority, renunciation of property ownership, vegetarianism, and celibacy. He gave up writing fiction during most of this time and turned instead to religious essays.

The Story and Themes: Many readers will already be familiar with the story of Anna Karenina, and for the rest, a brief capsule will have to suffice – considering that Tolstoy required 400,000 words for the telling. The title character, Anna (Helen McCrory), a magnificent woman of intelligence, sensitivity, and beauty, is married an older man, Alexei Karenin (Stephen Dillane), a prominent nobleman and politician. He is implacably cool and proper and their relationship is respectful but passionless. She, however, is contentedly oblivious to what is lacking in her life until she encounters the dashing Count Vronsky (Kevin McKidd). He is madly infatuated with her and not to be easily denied and Anna’s resistance soon crumbles, leading to an ever intensifying love affair. Anna leaves her husband, but he refuses to grant her a divorce or allow her to visit their eight year-old son. Anna and Count Vronksy have a child, but legally the child belongs to Karenin as does Anna herself. Anna, increasingly torn between the husband who will not grant a divorce and the lover who cannot legitimize his lineage without that divorce, breaks down emotionally and throws herself under a train.

There are two other story threads as well. Anna’s brother, Stefan Oblonsky (Mark Strong), is a loyal brother to Anna but far less loyal as a husband to Dolly Oblonsky (Amanda Root), being somewhat of a philanderer. Dolly’s sister, Princess Katherine “Kitty” Scherbatsky, a lovely but naïve and innocent young lady, turns down a solid but uncharismatic suitor, Konstantin Levin (Douglas Henshall), believing herself in love with Count Vronsky, but soon regrets her decision when she realizes that the Count’s affections are settled on Anna instead. Levin, who is Tolstoy’s alter ego in the novel, rallies his pride, somewhat later in the story, for a second proposal and is rewarded this time with rapturous success. Konstantin and Kitty, both rather shy creatures, fumble their way to a successful relationship, in stark contrast with the more passionate Anna and Vronsky, who are consumed, in the end, by the heat of their own passions. The contrast between these two romances is certainly the central theme of Anna Karenina, but the book also presents broader political messages reflecting Tolstoy’s liberal values: denunciation of social injustices perpetrated by such Russian institutions as the Russian Orthodox Church and the government and the social and economic disparities separating the Russian nobility from the peasantry.

Production Values: This 4-hour British miniseries produced in 2001 has some impressive strengths along with some inadequacies. True to the scriptwriter’s intent, as described above, this adaptation more successfully balanced the two major love stories as well as giving some substance to the third important relationship – the husband and wife pair, Stefan and Dolly Oblonsky. Unfortunately, neither of the two major threads carried as much emotional punch as one would have wished. I found the first half of the film fully engaging but the second half largely anticlimactic. All of the tension and plot components had been fully established by the midpoint, while the remainder consisted mainly of relentless progression toward rather predictable conclusions. The dialogue was believable and the performances satisfying, but the script somehow failed to provide enough basis for feeling fully invested in these characters. Some of the scenes taken individually were superlative, however, including all of the initial contacts between Anna and Vronsky, Levin tumbling off a roof at the sight of Kitty, Levin’s second proposal to Kitty, Levin hobnobbing with the peasants, the horserace, Karenin receiving a note informing him of Anna’s illness in the midst of a meeting with colleagues, and just about everything involving Dolly.

The costumes and sets were quite impressive in this production, providing plenty of lush interiors appropriate to the social class of these characters. The musical score was unobtrusive and satisfactory. On the other hand, there was a striking lack of “Russian” feel to this quintessentially Russian novel. Never mind that the language was English and the accents all British – there was no sign of Russian Orthodox architecture or interior ornamentations. It is for this reason more than any other that I might now give the 1967 Russian version a try.

The casting for this production is its strongest point, in my opinion. All of the leads fit their roles well and delivered believable performances. Helen McCrory, who played Anna, is lovely and charming without being a pin-up girl, as Hollywood typically casts in this role. Most of her other credits are in television, including several miniseries. Kevin McKidd, who played Count Vronsky, first appeared in Trainspotting (1995) and also played the part of “Leo” in one of my all-time favorite British comedies, Bedrooms and Hallways (1998). Just thinking about that film cracks me up! Stephen Dillane was masterful as Karenin. He also played Merlin in a soon-to-be-released version of King Arthur and Leonard Woolf opposite Nicole Kidman in The Hours. Paloma Baeza, who played Kitty, has seen action mainly in television. Douglas Henshall, who was Levin, was Edgar Alabaster in Angels & Insects (1995) and Michael in Orphans (1997). The Oblonskys, Stefan and Dolly, were played by two performers already familiar to me. Mark Strong, as Stefan, I have previously panned for his deadening performance as Mr. Knightley in Emma but he is fully satisfactory in Anna Karenina. Amanda Root, who played Dolly, is one of my old favorites for her outstanding performance as Anne Elliott in Persuasion. She gave another highly effective performance in this movie as well. I’d like to see more of her.

Bottom-Line: This is another one of those films that I’d like to assign 3.5 stars. I could justify that in a couple of different ways. The first half was a solid four stars but the second half slipped to three. Or, four stars for performances and a script nicely balanced between the Anna/Vronsky and Kitty/Levin relationships but three stars for lack of Russian flavor and the failure of the script to involve us more with the characters. Is this the top adaptation of Anna Karinina? Honestly, I don’t know. I think one would have to see the four top contenders at least to know for sure. This film is definitely worth a look-see for those with an interest in Tolstoy or a taste for British miniseries. This film is in English with a running time of about 4 hours.

Recommended:
Yes

Viewing Format: VHS
Video Occasion: Better than Watching TV
Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children Age 13 and Older