I was so confused for the first 20 minutes of watching. What made them do it this way? I couldn't take this movie seriously with it.
shareSomething to do with the theatricality of society during that period.
shareYou are right. The film would have been much better with out it. It looked like they were shooting a musical with out the music. I enjoyed the acting but the "never ending stage" as you put it was distracting.
Have to disagree with you. It is an innovative and frankly refreshing take on a story that everyone is familiar with from the novel and previous interpretations. The story is an enormous soap opera in 19th century Russian settings and the theatrical stage is a marvelous way to underscore the point. Tolstoy and Stoppard make great theatre.
-- Ew lover, you gonna make me clutch my pearls --
Azindin is obviously a relative or friend of the director. How on earth could anyone like how the director ruined this story with his stupid staging?
shareWell, as in Keira's words: Anna Karenina is a story that has been done a lot, what's the point of making of doing a safe adaptation?.
I actually liked the theater version, this is a book about aristocracy society, which is usually surround by this "perfect" environment about it, but we all know now that everything isn't that perfect, so it was reasonable why he choose to do the "public" scenes at the middle of the theater, and the "private" scenes in the backstage of the theater itself, its a way to tell that russian society was living a constantly charade, even in you privacy you have to act according what the "world" you live in expect to. And that's the reason also that Anna and Vronsky love scenes were outside the theater, because that wasn't the same fake relationship she had with Alexei. The same with Levin who leaves the constantly manipulative society and exile himself to the country side.
It's actually a really nice movie tho analize in terms of set design, cinematography and costume. Each of this departments could help you to understand how was the enviroment Anna was living in.
Kind of obvious is the example of princess Betsy who wears this intentionally historically inaccurate dresses so you can know that she is a woman who's thinking method is not the same as countess Lydia who was really appropriate and historically accurate and somehow the wise voice of Alexei. All that in 3 dresses.
I see your points...sort of. But trains do not run indoors, nor can a man stand up from a couch and suddenly be in a field of snow. It makes Anna Karenina seem like a fantasy/supernatural story. I don't think it needs to be a safe adaptation, but it does have to be realistic.
You miss the point ;)
shareindeed he/she does,big time. I do not recommend that person to ever visit a theatre play either,it requires imagination,and in case of this film much less so because they actually gave you the surroundings,and him moving from a room to a field is very much symbolic of how we simply see the progression of time squeezed from hours into seconds,for he had already went from city to countryside. If people can't even use imagination and think broadly,then I guess people should work on their creativity and imagination skills. Just my opinion.
shareNicely put, princesselene.
This post brought to you by The Yoyodyne Corporation
[deleted]
I think it was a nice try and it could have worked.
But it didn't, it was only confusing and boring.
Althought I might have liked it if i had liked the movie, which I didn't either.
For you. It didn't work for you. It was confusing and boring for you.
(I just had to correct your generalized assumption of everyones opinion before giving mine.)
I thought the film was a piece of creative genius, where "reality," as you all are so oddly concerned about when critiquing this film, was suspended and made way for a truly unique style of storytelling. I had problems with various parts of the film too, and by no means do I think it was perfect, but to me this theatrical take on the story was fresh, exciting, and made me wish more films were as brave as this one.
I am perfectly aware that people can have different opinions. I didn't know I had to point out that that was my opinion only since my name stands over.
sharethat is the whole point of Anna Karenina however, royal and high society in Empirical Russia was all about theatrics 24/7, many of them did not even speak Russian,for they spoke French since birth,they wore french clothes,their architecture,especially ST Petersburg as a whole,was French architecture,they ate french food, learned french customs and etiquette of behavior, they pretended and acted 24/7 and their whole lives were self-deceit and farce, an identity crisis if you will. They were more French than some French,so to speak.
To boot,Anna Karenina had to ACT and pretend,with all her theatrics ,as if like she did not feel anything for Vronsky and had to put on this act in order to be socially accepted,the theme is throughout the film. To be the perfect wife and mother and an example to all women,and yet,she was putting on a play,she was caged inside these roles,she wanted to break free,so theatrics that she put on in the film was mirrored overall,alongside french society they were all playing,in a way putting on a show and playing dress-up for each other in late 19th century/early 20th century.
The theatre setting only underlined this fact of society back then,oh and I don't recommend going to any theatre productions or plays then,there you will have a black wall and you will have to use your imagination that it is a church,or a field or a ballroom. If one can't use ones imagination much like one does in theatre ,but also appreciate the theatrics that high society in Russia actually put on, and thus this is only fitting,then I suggest not going to any plays.
Here, Joe Wright was making yet another adaptation to the screen of one of the greatest literary works of all time, and the only "novelty" he could think of was a stage setting to emphasize the fact that life of the royalty and high society in Tsarist Russia "was all about theatrics" and that social acceptability was important?! That precisely was what was wrong with the film.
shareokay,this is different. You just disliked the concept. You ''got it'' ,the psychological and symbolic parallels,but you simply did not like such a parallel drawn out.
Well,whether you like it or not,you have to admit it is a correct parallel. And nobody can please everybody obviously,nor should they. He was unable to please you because maybe you had preconceived notions of how YOU wanted to movie to look and be like,and if so,that is always basis for disappointment because you are projecting your own ideas unto a film that is not your own interpretation.If you had seen your own perfect version of it,there would have been folk who hated it.I am sure you realize all this,so just for overall readers to consider.
You did not like,fine :)
"that is the whole point of Anna Karenina however, royal and high society in Empirical Russia was all about theatrics 24/7 ..."
Oh, and weren't we abundantly reminded of that. In fact, watching that film, I will never be able to forget it. *eye roll*
Sorry for the sarcasm. I totally understand that some people liked it and some didn't, and I fall into the latter category. I usually like a bit of surrealism and fantasy, and to be fair, the stages were awfully creative. But for me, it didn't work in that movie. And I like plays, thank you very much, let's not get too defensive and jump to oversimplified conclusions, shall we?
I suppose a part of me expected a proper, serious period drama-type movie. It was difficult to take any part seriously with the stages constantly changing in such obvious ways. Not to mention the shortness of the parts, which made the movie seem too fluid and difficult to follow for me. I was unable to really "get into it" or feel for the characters. The constant changing ensured they couldn't have any presence. This is just my opinion.
Other things about it bothered me but that belongs to another thread.
The never-ending stage was an unpleasant surprise for me.
I get it,one can go with the flow,adapt and and roll with the concept,just internally align oneself into that kind of world where reality is shown like that. I mean,I am 23,I have not seen plays ever except as a kid for some school plays on christmas,so for me,I am a very modern,contemporary and urban person,watching mostly contemporary films,but Atonement,Pride and Prejudice and this,it appeals to me in a unique way. I am glad you enjoy plays,so I then find it intriguing you could/would not use imagination to roll with it and just internalize it to make sense within the context of the film.
It is unorthodox obviously.But it is a conscious choice,you can align yourself to that perspective and energy of it,or you can clinically watch the film from an external perspective and then yeah,it will seem staged and artificial,out of whack,goofy and what not.
But I tried to see it as Wright intended for it to be seen ,and to my surprise,energetically,I sort of got swept away with the film. Someone even pointed out how the fields and outdoor scenes symbolized the real,non-fake attitudes away from the farce and theatrics of the high society they were in normally,so those scenes were in real locations and not on a stage where they had to pretend.
The constant changing,not having enough prolonged scenes? there were a few,but overall yeah,it jumped often,but I guess it was the intention,to edit it that way. And I guess same here,one can try to align oneself,put aside any personal feelings and preconceived attitudes or one can take them and then unfortunately be disappointed.
I realize this film isnt for everyone,and certainly if someone can't get into it,it does not mean one is immature or not intelligent.Far from it,I guess it is,in the end,a choice and willingness to just lose oneself to that world fully,or get stuck because of certain factors. If I would dissect the movie externally,I would end up almost always disappointed with most films myself.I just choose to lose myself,as a choice.
But valid point why you did not like it. As long as you respect the effort and intent they had,even if it failed on you and disappointed you,then it is fine. I just dont understand some people who didnt like it and then say how horrible the film was just because they personally didnt like it,as if the crew is incompetent and suck or something. Cant please everyone.
Oh, and weren't we abundantly reminded of that. In fact, watching that film, I will never be able to forget it. *eye roll*
I usually like a bit of surrealism and fantasy, and to be fair, the stages were awfully creative. But for me, it didn't work in that movie. And I like plays, thank you very much, let's not get too defensive and jump to oversimplified conclusions, shall we?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Nowadays an entire society does not pretend to be a nation that they are not,in this case Empirical Russia mimicking France. Peter the First actually built a huge park in Tallinn,my city back in the day,here in Estonia,he even brought all the soil from Russia,he built the park for his wife Katherine and named it after her. He and many other rulers and high society in the 19th century were basically running away from their roots,not knowing their own language even,russian. THe architecture was all built after the French exactly,they hired French architects as well.
table manners,russia had its own etiquette,but they went with the French customs,and nowadays each nation knows their own language and does not deny their own nationality,also back then,unlike now,it was travesty and blasphemy if a woman wanted to be independent or wanted a divroce. They were expected to play the role of the perfect wife no matter the cost of personal sacrifice and unhappiness.
Nowadays,there are no such forcing and no such pretense. The pretense you speak of is the simplistic social masks,something many do,but this is not in the context of nationality nor culture,and this is certainly not in context of Empirical Russia where people pretended to be a whole other culture and people in themselves.
So it is a poor example,even though that too is theatrics,nowadays,the masks. But the pretense they had back in those days was deep-rooted,over a span of several generations,and they tried to escape their own heritage. Nowadays nobody does so,especially to the point of never learning the language of your nationality and country where you were raised and live.
Much like messy French high society of the 19th century,with constant revolutions and upheavals to boot, Russias high society mimicked it pretty darn well when it came to everything French and as some historians have said that in their subconscious pursuit of French attire and customs,they became more french than the French themselves. They played the roles with such fervor that they ended up believing the BS they were selling themselves and each other,they bought it themselves,that is how intent and passionate they were at becoming a whole different thing.
So if nowadays we randomly put on some behavioural masks,then back then,there,in that era of that country,it was a whole body suit equipped with a permanent mask,not just ''at times'' putting on a mask when needed.
They became the mask,not just wore it on occasion.
So there is a different context entirely here,compared to nowadays.
Valeri,
Just so you know, it's Imperial Russia, not Empirical Russia.
empirical [ɛmˈpɪrɪkəl]
adj
1. derived from or relating to experiment and observation rather than theory
2. (Medicine) (of medical treatment) based on practical experience rather than scientific proof
3. (Philosophy) Philosophy
a. (of knowledge) derived from experience rather than by logic from first principles
noted, thank you.
shareBut it misunderstood the book. Levin working, the horse race, the despair, the sickness was real. To stage it all, is to say that the theatrics of society was their world. Anna never seemed like more than keira knightley playing anna the actor playing Anna . I was about the restrictions of social mores yes, but also about the artifice of it. It is an illusion. Not a stage. It is not about going backstage exposing the artificiality, it is about realizing that the artifice is a lie. There is no stage. Only people. To remove it from the reality that tolstoj wanted to expose that he managed to expose is wrongheaded. The book was not about artifice. It was about reality.
shareyoure jsut looking at it from a different angle alltogether, which I actually get !
But in general, theatre is seen as pretend,faking and playing a part. In this sense,I'm russian myself,and the Russian Empire,in the 19th century especially, was going through an identity crisis,the elite rich hierarchy and wealthy ones mostly, who almost denied and wanted to disattach themselves from all things inherently slavic/russian. They took all the customs,habits, attitudes from the French, so much so some of them were more french than the french back then, they were a heightened reality of the french,they even ordered french cuisine from France or had French chefs on hire, their kids learnt only french,not russian,many times. So in that sense, they were putting on an act, faking to be something they werent, the french,or ''better than'' the common folk.
You made a good point about Levin,though, but even the despair he had,the humiliation he had, because he ''couldnt control his wife'' were also all artifice of society back then. They were real in that the society back then actually bought their own *beep* they've fooled themselves into believing all this crap, that you can't divorce once you've married etc. It was all forced upon,playing up morales that were ridiculous, yet of course very real.
It's like an actor who has gone so method that they actually believe they are the character...in that sense the actor REALLY,in reality, believes himself to be this character,but he still isn't,it's still all fakery,he bought his own lie.
But I do udnerstand how some of it was real,most of it even,in terms of their pain and pressure to conform to the norms of society back then. But I think thats what the director wanted to showcase... society was pretending to be something it isn't, in general, and the people who lived in that society were forced to conform to it,were brought up on it...It was very real to them,they knew no other life...but in broader terms it was a period of national identity crisis on those levels.
It just did not work. Maybe because of the actors, but it was a horrible stylistic and clunky choice. The actors were never not on stage. Because he did not pull off the stage being symbolic. It was not a good choice. And Tolstoy believed in the religious principle just not the condemnation. And so do i. The religious aspect was never artifice.
share[deleted]
But it made the parts that were REAL and physical into artifice. The race, Anna being overcome with fear and emotion, the physicality of the horses the riders, the sweat, the natural mixed with the artificial. It made EVERY emotion into an act. Keira Knightley was a bad choice, but she was done a huge disservice by making us think about the persona of Anna through the persona of an actress. The raw,the bleeding the real wasn't represented. Only artifice. Not the real people behind it
shareI thought it was beautiful. The first half of the film was a whirlwind dance; like watching leaves on the breeze. Even the servants danced around their employers. The waltzing was breathtaking. I get that this is different, but I felt that this adaptation embodied the spirit of the novel.
Bam said the lady.
I felt like "the stage" thing ended after the first hour. Or maybe i just didnt notice it anymore. Did anyone else think this?
shareIt was an expressionistic production concept--something we're not used to in movies, since early in film history directors experimented with it and then went the other direction, so we automatically expect a much more naturalistic approach. I think it was interesting, and worked.
share
Question, did they use the never ending staging the entire movie? Because I turned it off after 30 minutes. I don't mind see that on a real stage, but not in a movie. Just got on my nerves. Beautiful looking movie otherwise.
No, there were a few scenes that were outside but at the same time there were a few scenes (like that scene when Vronsky had to kill that horse he was racing with because the horse fell down and was seriously injured) that were staged and it really looked ridiculous sometimes.
I have no words...so just enjoy over 2000 videos http://www.youtube.com/user/yinloveyang