Films based on classics are usually criticized for the fact that they "do not correspond" or "do not fully convey the essence" of the original. Regarding "Anna Karenina&one can say - thank God that Joe Wright did not try to recreate all the thoughts and ideas of Leo Tolstoy on the screen. Such a book is a priori impossible to translate into film, and Wright made an interesting and beautiful film, albeit not a great one.
"Anna Karenina" is competing for an Oscar in four nominations, but there is not a single major one among them. The work of the cinematographer and the production designer, the soundtrack, the costumes - it is very significant and correct that the film can be recognized as the best according to these criteria. Joe Wright made a very beautiful movie depicting the entire expensive, luxurious life of the Russian elite of the 19th century. Balls, routs, and opera scenes are simply pleasant to watch - and, in my dilettante opinion, everything is shot quite plausibly.
The director, having a large budget (and this is clear from the above-mentioned scenes), had the opportunity to choose. When determining the female lead, Wright rejected Cate Blanchett - but in the end, perhaps, he got into the top ten. Keira Knightley played the role just perfectly, changing every five minutes. From coquetry to passion, from falling in love to anger, from maternal love to the coldness of separation, Knightley experienced the full range of feelings in the image of Karenina and was always convincing.
Karenin is not portrayed as a negative character in the film. He's just the right man to gnash his teeth - executive, kind, smart... but boring and uninteresting. It is not surprising that Anna, a young and beautiful wife, got tired of him at some point - and then officer Vronsky caught her eye. Handsome, gallant, able to court beautifully, to seek the favor of a lady - naturally, she could not resist him. That's the whole point of Tolstoy - in his books he rarely drew unambiguously negative characters, but preferred to simply show life.
In "Anna Karenina&"there are also no unambiguously bad ones. There is one multi-headed monster - a society that crushes people under itself, forces them to act against their will, and is afraid of public anger... "I would have forgiven her if she had only broken the law. She broke the rules!"quot; - says the performer of one of the minor roles, refusing to talk to Karenina after her betrayal. She doesn't know much about the Karenins or the Vronskys, but she despises Anna because she should be despised.
What is not fully revealed in the film is the reasons for Anna's suicide. In the final scenes, after the actual separation from her husband, she appears to the viewer as a hysterical and flighty woman who seriously tests Vronsky's patience. It's not entirely clear why Karenina would jump in front of a train-was she really under such pressure from public opinion?.. If so, then truly the nobility and the rich are terribly far from the people.". 99% of the Russian population could only dream of such an "unhappy" life as an outcast.
However, the rich have their own quirks. The writer who wrote "Anna Karenina" was a landowner, but he worked in the fields along with the peasants and generally led a very ascetic lifestyle. It's great that the director transferred the autobiographical image of Leo Tolstoy, Konstantin Levin, from the book to the film. The Russian idealist, who is embarrassed by his wealth and longs for justice for all, is depicted on the screen very vividly and interestingly.
"Anna Karenina" is definitely worth giving her two hours of time. But do not compare a movie with a book - this is a sure opportunity to spoil your viewing experience. It's not the fault of a talented director that a great writer created the script for his film... It is very good that Tolstoy's masterpiece has more and more film adaptations, including among Hollywood blockbusters. https://casino-ja.jp/