In another adaptation of the story, the one with Keira Knightley, there was a few lines that stuck with me after I watched it (don't know if it was in the novel itself):
Vronsky: "I love you"
Anna: "Why?"
Vronsky: "You can't ask why about love"
It had to be contrasted with a parallel conversation between Kitty and Levin, where they could find plenty of reasons why they loved each other. No question which one was the most successful couple.
The thing that struck me is that Anna and her lover have no idea why they love each other. They have this really strong attraction towards each other, but they don't even know why, plus they don't function as a couple, don't understand each other and don't make each other happy. Not really.
So the fact that Skeet lacks charisma and that it's a bit hard to figure out what Anna sees in him - other than the fact that he's kind of handsome if you're into skinny-jeans types of guys and that he pulls all the oldest seduction tricks in the book on her - is actually a good thing from a story-telling perspective, the way I see it. Their passion is irrational, selfish and destructive. It's a form of limerence rather than love. It's not meant to be a couple one aspires to emulate. One is not really supposed to find Skeet attractive and charismatic.
So I'd say it was a good casting choice actually.
reply
share