Several weeks and not many blog posts ago, I discussed my mixed feelings on movie adaptations of books. Anna Karenina is a recent adaptation (directed by Joe Wright) that I looked forward to seeing, even though I knew it would not live up to the standard of the book. I mean, really, there's no way a filmmaker could ever turn 1,000 pages of Tolstoy's powerful prose into a riveting two hour movie that captures every little nuance and brings to life every character.Usually when I see a film adaptation of a book, I go into the theater with the attitude of "They better not change anything at all," but with Anna Karenina, I had to be a little more realistic. I had to swallow my pride, temper my dogmatism, and instead I sat before the screen with the attitude of "There's no way they can include everything, but they better not edit out anything important."
And overall, I thought that the makers of the movie were successful in capturing the story of Anna Karenina...on an extremely superficial level.
This recent adaptation of Anna Karenina portrayed a very pretty love story; I almost felt like I was watching a ballet, not a movie. The movie's backdrop was not Russia, but a stage, creating the illusion that the viewer is watching a play, not a movie. A curtain is drawn open upon the opening scene, transitions between scenes mimic set changes, and the actors sometimes ascend the catwalk to get to the seedier side of town.
To imitate a play was a risky choice on the part of director Joe Wright, but one that I think was original and interesting. Overall, the movie is elegantly choreographed. Everything about it is just so...pretty.
But I felt like all of the substantial moments in the book were either skimmed over or completely cut out. The story of my favorite character, Constantine Levin, especially suffered. Granted, it would be very boring to dedicate as much movie time to Levin talking about his farm as Tolstoy did in the book. Such scenes would not translate well onto the big screen, but I do feel that Levin deserved a larger role. In the book, his relationship with Kitty serves as a perfect foil to Anna and Vronsky's relationship, and I think that element was missing in the movie. Also, because Levin's character is not fully developed in the movie, the attempt, at the end of the movie, to capture his religious epiphany seems random and almost nonsensical.
Not only did I feel that Levin was cheated, but a lot of my favorite scenes from the book did not make it into the movie. Though, perhaps in this respect I need to be more reasonable; I'm not sure anyone has the patience to sit through a five hour movie.
Anna Karenina is a very long novel with many social, philosophical, and psychological layers. It may just be unfilmable, unable to be anything but a pretty love story on the big screen. If we must have a filmed adaptation of Anna Karenina, the novel might be better suited to a multi-part movie or a TV mini-series. You just can't capture the complexities of Tolstoy in a couple hours.
But if you're looking for a pretty love story with pretty music and pretty dancing and pretty people in pretty clothes doing pretty things then Anna Karenina is your movie.
