Widespread misreadings of Vronsky (spoilers)

Many reviewers on this site have criticised the portrayal of Vronsky by Kieron Moore as feeble when compared with the tremendous power and subtlety of Ralph Richardson's Karenin. This is not a defect of the film but part of its strength.

In this version Vronsky is meant to be weak: a fatherless spoiled pretty boy, who wants mothering by the married Anna rather than marriage to the delectable but still immature Kitty. Unlike the 1935 film, he is not shown as a man among men, a keen cavalry officer and a patriot. Instead we are given a toy soldier who cares little for his career, country and social position, who is so irresponsible that he gives everything up to live as an outcast with a woman who has lost husband, child and reputation.

Those who criticise the choice of Moore for the part or the way he plays it have failed to separate actor from rôle. In fact, he gives us the Vronsky which scriptwriters and director have chosen.

If you do not like this Vronsky, you are quite right because you are not meant to. If you think Anna was wasted on him, you are right. And if you have a sneaking suspicion that despite his evident faults Karenin was the better choice for her, you are right.