Like it says in the title: WARNING! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! Just so's y'all aware.
Remember. SPOILERS. So feel free to exercise your free will and go right ahead and not read this, ok? Good. Just double checking we are on the same page over here.
So initial thoughts: I enjoyed this film. I really did. There weren't any points when I sat there thinking about what I wanted for tea or anything like that. It was engaging and intriguing. For some reason I'm not raving about this film, and I can't quite put my finger on why. It might have something to do with the fact I didn't read the book first, and the two male leads (played by Jude Law and Aaron Taylor-Johnson) both have the same first name, or maybe because at one point the (overall excellent) cinematography made me a little dizzy. But all of those things I can completely overlook for the following reasons.
Background info/basic plot-type-thing: So, Anna Karenina (as a film) is based on the Leo Tolstoy novel of the same name and stars many fabulous actors, including Kiera Knightly (who I will be eternally infatuated with), Jude Law (ditto), Aaron Taylor-Johnson (ditto) and Matthew MacFadyen (oh come on guys he was Darcy! Obviously I am going to be madly in love with him! The 2005 adaptation of P&P is still my favourite adaptation. Think about it. Him. Kiera. Rupert Friend. Carey Mulligan. Donald Sutherland. See what I mean...).
It follows the story of Anna (Knightly)- a rich Russian woman -who is married to a much older man, Alexei Karenina (Law) - a prominent politician - with whom she has a son. Her son is the centre of her world at the beginning of the film. Her brother Oblongsky (MacFadyen) has been having an affair, so Anna goes to visit her sister-in-law (Dolly - played by the amazing actress Kelly MacDonald) to try to convince her to take him back. Whilst she is there she goes to a party with Dolly and Dolly's sister Kitty. It is at this party that we are introduced to Kitty's two suitors - Levin (a wealthy land owner) and Count Vronsky (Taylor-Johnson). Levin is madly in love with Kitty and proposes to her - she turns him down in favour of Vronsky. However, at this party Vronsky meets Anna (technically for the second time - they also met at a train station when Vronsky gave money to the family of a worker who had just been run over by the train he was fixing) and it becomes very clear that they are attracted to one-another. Kitty is distraught and Anna, feeling guilty, returns quickly home. However, Vronsky follows her and they begin a passionate affair, with Anna eventually falling pregnant. There is a very complicated situation in which Alexei refuses to divorce Anna on the grounds it will ruin her, but eventually after the birth of the child he begins the divorce procedure. Anna is rejected from society and, highly aware of the whispers that follow her, becomes increasingly jealous of the attention she perceives Vronsky giving to other women, and is convinced he is having an affair (as Dolly tells her "men never change").
Meanwhile, both Levin and Kitty are miserable, however Levin has the added concern of a very ill brother who is also revolutionary anti-capitalist. Levin finally plucks up the courage to ask Kitty to marry him again (with a little help from Oblongsky) and they appear to have a happy future together.
Anna, on the other hand becomes increasingly more manic and convinced of Vronsky's falling out of love with her, and so throws herself under a train. The film ends with Alexei sitting in a field, happily watching his son and Anna's daughter play together.
So, as you can its a pretty complicated story, even with only the bare bones. The whole film was set in a theatre, which I adored, and with many of the scene changes the camera simply followed the main character as they walked from set to set, with extras pulling in new furniture or pulling down backdrops. This was such a clever idea - and even though it made me a little dizzy at points - it added such a sense of atmosphere and also entrapment, which became vital as the film reached it's conclusion.
The acting performances were incredible. There wasn't a single character who was weak. I particularly enjoyed MacFadyen's performance as he held some light comic relief for the film without detracting for its dark plot.
The thing I most enjoyed about the film, however, was it's presentation of women in the late 19th century. Women are completely trapped within society. It is acceptable for a man (in this case Oblongsky) to have a series of affairs and still be deemed a respectable gentleman. Anna, on the other hand, is condemned by most of society for her affair (with the exception of Dolly, Princess Betsy and Princess Myagkaya). She has no escape, except madness and, ultimately death. This is a theme that is reflected through literature over centuries, from Shakespeare to Bronte. Madness is the final escape of a women who is perceived to me damned (multiple times throughout the film Anna and Alexei refer to her damnation).
This struck a particular chord with me as the guy I went to see the film with and I had been discussing how women go "crazy" in relationships. He argued that women go more crazy than men, and recounted from his personal experiences with girls he had been in relationships with. I argued that women and men go equally crazy, just if a man goes crazy it is perceived as sweet and "oh my gosh look how in love he is with you", whereas is if a women goes crazy then she is psycho, creepy, something to be avoided. It amazed me that this was still so prevalent in society today - a society that prides itself of equal rights and anti-discrimination. The complete sexism of the perception of the emotional states of men and women. It disgusted me that we still viewed the world in this way, and also made me reflect on the different escapes women have for their emotions now as opposed to a century or so ago. Luckily we have a lot more outlets. Women are allowed to be viewed feeling and experiencing the same emotions as men - through literature and art and self-expression. And the fact we are allowed that shouldn't be undervalued. But to be honest, it shouldn't have been something we were "allowed" by men. It should have been accepted as norm a long, long time ago. That is what is so hideous about society. It still holds patriarchal values. Films like this highlight how recently these values were held so much stronger than they are today, as well as the fragility with which they are held.
Recommended reading: www.justmargaret.tumblr.com she posts some excellent things on feminism and you should probably check her out.
Anyway, I am told that the book was better than the film, so I'll be reading that as soon as I can.
Rating: 4 stars
TTFN!! xx
Currently Reading: Flappers and Philosophers (Kindle edition) by F. Scott. Fitzgerald.
No comments:
Post a Comment