Plot Details: This opinion reveals minor details about the movie's plot.
I recently reviewed a British miniseries version of Anna Karenina that was very good but which left me thirsting for more of the Russian flavor of this great story. I have found it in this marvelous 1967 Russian filming of Anna Karenina, along with great production values. This 2-disc DVD release from Ruscico also contains a very nice package of extras. On disc 1, there are two items called “Thoughts About Leo Tolstoy” and “Chronicle” that are not to be missed. They include incredible film footage of the great author – in Moscow and at his estate. There is a behind the scenes interview with Tatyana Samojlova from which I took a quote below. On disc two, there’s a neat interview with the actress Vasilij Lanovoj, who plays Princess Betsy Tverskaya, but who was formerly a legendary ballerina. There are interviews with the director and four of the actors/actresses. My only complaint about the extras is that the so-called “filmographies” appeared in letters too small for me to read comfortably.
Historical Background: In the midst of writing Anna Karenina, Tolstoy’s great “conversion” began. Tolstoy had spent a short time beginning in 1952 in the army as a commissioned officer. It was not only the horrors of war that deeply impacted Tolstoy. It was the nature of the armed services themselves. The ranks of enlisted men were comprised of peasants who served involuntarily. Until 1863, the service requirement for these soldiers was twenty-five years! During that time, they were seldom allowed to see their families and had little likelihood of married life. After 1863, the term of service was reduced to seven years, but solider were sometimes subjected to brutal, sometimes fatal, floggings administered while running the “gauntlet.” Conditions were so deplorable that the enlisted men would sometimes take advantage of battle conditions, where the cause of deaths could not be readily ascertained, to kill their own officers. Later, Tolstoy traveled extensively and observed first-hand the poverty of the peasants, lack of educational opportunity, and repression. The government used both the military and peasant-collaborators to intimidate through hangings and shootings peasants who fought for rights or economic improvements.
As a result of these experiences, Tolstoy became increasingly committed to fighting social injustice and inequities, both through his writings and his personal decisions. He opened a school for the children of peasants on his estate at Yasnaya Polyana. Tolstoy began to despise his own life of privilege. He believed that it was immoral to live in such luxury while others starved but also that it precluded his further growth as an individual. Tolstoy was always devoted to truth, saying, for example, “I love the truth; I love it very much.” He had determined that “In order to understand life, I must understand the life not of exceptions, not our life [the aristocracy], the life of parasites, but the life of ordinary, working people, of those who make life.” He also developed his philosophy of nonresistance, or peacefulness in the face of violence. Mahatma Gandhi considered himself to be a disciple of Tolstoy and in his youth translated a letter about repression in India that had been written by Tolstoy as a response to an Indian correspondent.
Tolstoy’s change was so complete that it caused severe problems for his marriage. His wife, Sonya, had married one man but then found herself later in life married, in effect, to another. She was not so inclined as her husband to abandon the privileges of wealth and attend to the needs of the peasantry. Tolstoy practiced celibacy after his conversion, so perhaps the state of their marriage was not so critical as it might otherwise have been. Tolstoy also renounced his earlier fiction, calling it “trash” composed for the culturally elite. The story of Anna Karenina, in particular, was now seen as worthless by Tolstoy, since the characters were almost entirely aristocrats. Unfortunately, this change in heart occurred before the final chapters of the great novel had been completed. Tolstoy described the effort he expended in completing the work as “unbearably repulsive.” “My God,” he said, “if only someone would finish Anna Karenina for me.” We can thank our lucky stars that he found, in the end, the determination necessary to conclude it.
The Story: The story, in brief, concerns a young woman of the aristocracy, Anna Karenina (Tatyana Samojlova), who is in a loveless marriage to the considerably older Alexei Karenin (Nikolai Gritsenko), a political leader at the height of his fame and power. She meets and falls in love with the dashing Count Vronsky. Their love for one another proves irresistible, despite the condemnation that Anna will be subjected to by both her husband and Russian society.
There are two main subplots as well. Anna’s brother, the selfish and hedonistic Stiva Oblonsky (Yuri Yakovlev), is in the doghouse with his faithful wife, Dolly (Iya Savvina), after having an affair with the pretty young governess of their children. With Anna’s encouragement, Dolly finds the strength of purpose to forgive her philandering husband for the sake of her marriage and her children. Dolly’s sister, Kitty (Anastasiya Vertinskaya), provides the focus for the other subplot. She has just come into adulthood and has refused an offer of marriage from an old friend, Konstantin Lyovin (Boris Goldayev), because she is infatuated with Count Vronsky. Her idea of romance is shattered, however, when she observes that Vronsky favors the married Anna instead. Lyovin (likely a variant on Tolstoy’s given names “Leo Nicolaevich”) is Tolstoy’s alter ego in the novel and wrestles with issues relating to his own privilege and the treatment of his peasants. One of the dramatic elements for viewers is waiting to find out if Lyovin will overcome the humiliation of being once rejected to muster the courage for a second proposal (shades of Mr. Darcy!) and, if so, whether Kitty’s answer will be the same.
Themes: Tolstoy’s politics are never terribly far beneath the surface in Anna Karenina. Much is made of the plight of the peasants and the uncouth privilege of the aristocracy. This Russian film adaptation of the novel does a better job, not surprisingly, with these themes than did the English adaptation that I reviewed previously.
The most interesting thematic issue in this story, for me, is Tolstoy’s take on infidelity – which was a rather scandalous topic when applied to the aristocracy as Tolstoy did. On the one hand, we have as the very first subject matter, the philandering of Stiva Oblonsky, which is based entirely on the age-old problem of uncontrolled male libido. Clearly Tolstoy’s sympathies in this instance lie with the offended wife, Dolly, and not with the selfish Stiva. Anna’s infidelity, on the other hand is treated quite differently, first, because it is driven by genuine, passionate love, and, secondly, because the social order that was extant in Russian aristocratic society was such as to have condemned her, in the first place, to a loveless marriage to a much older man. Tolstoy seems to be condemning the social order that destroyed Anna as much or more than Anna herself. Anna is really quite noble and admirable despite her infidelity. I agree, for example, with the observation made by Tatyana Samojlove, the actress who played Anna: “I think that the strength of her character, her extremely passionate mind, a delicate and sensitive turn of mind, enables her to feel and act as her heart wills, as her dignity prescribes, the dignity of women’s privilege, women’s priority.” We admire Anna, despite her selfishness in permitting herself to be swallowed up by her romance with Vronsky, even when it costs her the relationship with her son, because we feel that for her to do otherwise, she would have had to deny the most fundamental desire of her own heart – the desire to be truly loved. Anna’s own most straightforward explanation of her course of action occurs when she states to Vronsky, “I love you and there is nothing else that matters.” Unfortunately, she discovers that something else does matter and later indicates that she cannot bear to live without both Vronsky and her son.
Production Values: There are four Hollywood and four non-Hollywood adaptations of Anna Karenina currently available, if you include the ballet version:
Hollywood:
1935 – 85 minutes, starring Greta Garbo
1948 – 139 minutes, starring Vivien Leigh
1985 – 96 minutes, starring Jacqueline Bisset
1997 – 108 minutes, starring Sophie Morceau
You’ll note that there is a tremendous range in lengths for these adaptations. All of the shorter versions shortchange the subplots, reducing the story down to the melodrama of infidelity. What is lost is both the balance between the Anna-Vronsky relationship and the Kitty-Lyovin relationship and Tolstoy’s political commentary. The 240 minute British version (which I previously reviewed – see Anna Karenina) rectifies the balance and provides strong casting, but lacks any substantial Russian flavor or settings. This Russian version offers a lot of strengths compared to the 2000 British miniseries and a smaller number of weaknesses.
The strengths of this Russian adaptation are manifold. First, the settings, both interior and exterior, are gorgeous, authentic, and fully Russian. The cinematography is gorgeous, not only because of the settings but also in the variety of techniques. In one scene, the camera spins to mimic the dancing motion of a character. There is a gorgeous scene on Lyovin’s estate where the peasants are cutting hay and the sunlight glistens between the foliage. The scene where Anna and Vronsky have gone abroad is filmed largely outside, in Italian or Italian-looking settings. There is a magnificent scene in a Russian opera house.
The casting in this version was competitive with the fine casting for the British miniseries and they are altogether far more credible as Russian characters. Tatyana Samojlova had just the right look about her for Anna and conveyed both her strength of character and, later, her unraveling, very effectively. Vasili Lanovoy was also very handsome as Count Vronsky and delivered a strong performance. He later appeared in War and Peace as Anatol. The casting of Kitty and Dolly was also very good. Anastasiya Vertinskaya, who played Kitty, also appeared in War and Peace (1968). The actor playing Karenin in this version, Nikolai Gritsenko, was a good deal older as well as less sympathetic than his counterpart in the British miniseries. As a result, Anna’s unhappiness in the marriage and the impetus for her affair seems much clearer in the Russian version. Gritsenko was also highly effective in the role. My one complaint about the casting in this Russian version is Boris Goldayev as Kostantin Lyovin. He, too, was a lot older than his counterpart in the British version and also not all that handsome. It detracted some from interest in the Kitty-Lyovin romance. The Russian version devoted more screen time to the Kitty-Lyovin subplot than do the Hollywood adaptations, but less than the 2000 British miniseries. On the other hand, Goldayev certainly invoked associations with Tolstoy far better than did the British actor playing Lyovin and the social and political issues were stronger in the Russian version.
For the British miniseries, I complained that the second half was a comparative letdown after a highly effective first half. That was not a problem for the Russian version. The dramatic tension held up nicely until the very end. On the other hand, the British version did a better job in initially introducing the various characters, allowing viewers not familiar with the novel more opportunity to identify and get to know each major participant. With 95 fewer minutes less to work with, the Russian version had to shortchange something. I think that the Russian version will work just fine for those already familiar with the story, which is probably what the producers of that version had in mind, since Anna Karenina is virtually a sacred text for Russians.
The musical score for this film (by R. Shchedrin) is excellent. The sound people, however, also occasionally inserted annoying “dramatic chords” – sounds to underscore the emotional significance of a particular moment. It’s both unnecessary and cloying.
Bottom-Line: I would like to state, as I did for the Russian adaptation of War and Peace, that this version of Anna Karenina is the definitive one, but I don’t feel I have the right to that conclusion without having seen more of the competitors than I have. I feel certain that this is the most Russian of the versions and that for me is important for this quintessentially Russian story. The production values are very high as well and the dramatic pace was more to my liking than in the 4-hour British version. I have not read the novel and so am not burdened by issues of how faithful or complete each version is as an adaptation. I imagine that purists who love the novel might find the longer adaptations more to their liking. But if getting the authentic Russian flavor of the story is high on your list of priorities, this adaptation will be your cup of vodka.
*************************************************************************************************
You might want to check out these other excellent films from Russia and the U.S.S.R.:
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.