MovieChat Forums > War & Peace (1973) Discussion > Wonderful Series, Awful Natasha

Wonderful Series, Awful Natasha

posted 9 years ago by drorawk
10 replies | jump to latest

Borrowed DVD series from the local library and have been watching it again a couple of decades after I watched it for the first time. It is gorgeous. I detest war movies, but I even loved the war scenes here. The series has so much heart and so much smarts. And for the first time (only time?) the French did not speak English with a French accent (nor did the Russians speak with a Russian accent). It is always irritating to me to hear the accents when it is clear that the implication is that the characters speak in their native language and, therefore, would not have an accent.
I do have a problem with the acting, namely with Morag Hood as Natasha. She does not convey sparkly, youthful innocence. (I have watched some seven episodes so far.) She is Acting, and she is irritating among the impeccable rest of the cast. Goodness, Anthony Hopkins is so amazing, but then so is everybody else. She apparently died of cancer before she was 60 years old, and I'm so sorry about it.

[–] henrimaine 8 years ago

I have not seen the 1972 series in full, but I took a quick glance at it on youtube. And I agree with you, Natasha looks just awful compared to the 1956 Hollywood and 1966 Soviet version of War and Peace. Of course, the 1956 and 1966 Natashas look quite similar, I suspect the Soviets probably chose an actress who would look like Audrey Hepburn, because of how well Audrey suited for that role in the 1956 version.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Buddy-51 8 years ago

I think Morag Hood is superb in episodes 16, 17 and 19, much better than any previous or later Natasha.

[–] drorawk 8 years ago

She was better in the latter episodes than in the early ones. I saw Audrey Hepburn in the movie many years ago. Now we have a new Natasha to check out.

[–] Buddy-51 8 years ago

I think the reason I like Morag Hood's performance so much is that she really makes it feel as if the character grows and matures over time. Yes, she can be annoying in the early stages, but I actually think that works retroactively. My problem with all the other Natashas is that the actresses play the character pretty much the same all the way through so that we don't get that sense of growth that Ms. Hood provides.

I love the intensity she brings to the various scenes in which she confronts her mother and the subtle poignancy of her scenes caring for the dying Andrei and her dealing with the grief brought about by his loss. She really brings the character to life for me in a way that none of the others (including Lily James in the most recent incarnation) does.

[–] drorawk 8 years ago

Now that I have watched the 2016 BBC mini-series I tend to agree with you. The only character in the new production that evoked some emotion in me was the mutt who stayed with its master when he collapsed. I kept flashing back to the old series and marveled again at the waste of time, money and talent. They should have dusted up the old series and shown it.

[–] Buddy-51 7 years ago

Exactly. The new version was all about spectacle. The old version was all about character, which is what makes War and Peace great in the log run.

[–] henrimaine 8 years ago

I took a closer look at the 1972 series and I must say that the actress who played Natasha actually acted very well. Even in the first episode when she is supposed to be a little girl. If only they had not included these few close ups which showed her real age. From afar her acting was very girlish and right for Natasha's age.

Anthony Hopkins, however, was excellent as Pierre.

[–] drorawk 8 years ago

It was the first time I saw Anthony Hopkins in anything. He had me from the first time he adjusted his glasses on his nose. His acting as a character who grows through time and experience is superb. One senses the man he will grow into through his immature years.
When he burst onto the Hollywood scene and astounded as Hannibal Lecter I thought "Wait until you see him as Pierre Bazukhov." Sadly, not many did. People, the local public library has that series and numberless other treasures.

[–] tennismenace 7 years ago

A lot of great comments on this thread. Thanks to all.

My thoughts: Natasha is only 13 when it began so I guess you have to factor that in. And yes, she does GROW up and mature nicely which is probably why we really appreciate her acting more at the end. But, I can understand the silliness up front.

I agree- no comparison in my opinion, 1972 is much much better than the most recent one.

Anthony Hopkins! Duh!!!!!!