As 2012 starts coming
to a close, we are getting a whole wave of films that are big Oscar
contenders, as is the norm. I don't know why this is traditionally
the season for Academy Award pictures to come out, but it's been that
way for a long time. I suppose the Academy has a bad memory and
can't remember what happened in the Summer or heaven forbid February.
Anyway, poking fun aside, this is often a frustrating time of year
for me because I really like watching Oscar calibre films, and with
how busy the season is, I find it hard to make the time to see many
of the movies that I want to see. I do find time for a few though,
and this year I have managed to catch Joe Wright's adaptation of Anna
Karenina. And it has many of the Oscar staples going for it.
Namely, it's a period piece and it's directed by Joe Wright, who,
since his debut Pride and Prejudice back in 2005, has made
several Oscar contenders. He followed that up with Atonement
in 2007. After not doing as well with The Soloist and trying
his hand in the action genre with Hanna, he's coming back into
adapting more classic literature. So, as you see, he's back with
Keira Knightly as his leading lady so you know he means business.
Anna Karenina is
adapted from a novel by Leo Tolstoy, one of Russia's most famous
writers from the 19th century. Knightly stars as Anna
Karenina, a married aristocrat in Russia, who on a trip to Moscow,
finds herself being pursued romantically by Count Vronsky (Aaron
Taylor-Johnson). And while at first she denies him, his persistence
gets the best of her and she succumbs to his seduction. But the
consequences are grave for her as their relationship slowly becomes
more and more obvious in public. Her husband Alexei Karenin (Jude
Law) begins to get word of their inappropriate behaviour and battles
between wanting to keep appearances and wanting to give his wife
free will.
There have been many
film and television adaptations of Anna Karenina through the years,
the earliest was made almost 100 years ago. So, what could Joe Wright
bring to the story that would make it his own? Well, in order to
come to conclusions about the depth of a film, I usually ask myself
if I could write a paper on it, or a thorough review if you will.
Tolstoy is a famous writer for a reason because of his depth of
characters and story so it seems pretty obvious that someone could.
But in the case of this film, I think one could write a paper on the
directorial choices made through the movie and how the visual aspect
marries the story. Instead of a traditional telling of the story,
Wright makes this into a somewhat surreal stage presentation, as if
it were live theatre captured on film. For better or for worse, the
style of the movie draws a lot of attention to itself.
Some critics have
not taken to the visual style of the film, claiming that it is all
style and no substance. I would argue that there is substance, the
style can just be distracting, which is a fair enough criticism. But
for me personally, I like the spectacle of it all. I was swept away
by the visuals and the business of it. The technical aspect
fascinates me and drew me into the film more, but part of that is
from my film making training. I wonder how Wright did it all because
his long travelling shots are so intricate and detailed, rarely
cutting from a single shot, covering entire dialogues and scene
changes. When I was in school, we saw his long steady cam shots in
Pride and Prejudice and they were impressive and captivating,
particularly for a debut feature. Now, he's much more practised and
has polished this technique, this time giving a clear stylistic
reason for it. And why not? If Anna Karenina has been adapted so
many times, why not give this one a unique visual appeal, otherwise,
some might not find much justification for seeing this one instead of
another. I have no doubt this will at least be nominated for art
direction and cinematography come Oscar season.
I also wouldn't be too
surprised if we saw Keira Knightly get another nomination for Best
Actress, since Joe Wright clearly knows how to work with her and get
a great performance. I know that some find her irritating, but I have
to confess that I am a Keira Knightly fan and have been since she got
her big break in Pirates of the Caribbean almost ten years
ago. And while she hasn't fared as well in blockbusters since then,
she has often proven herself a very capable actress and roles like
Anna Karenina prove that she deserves attention for more than just
her pretty face. So, I'm glad that she has found parts that suit her
strengths as an actress and I look forward to more from her. Jude Law
also performs very well as Alexei Karenin, a man conflicted between
his morals and his anger for the injustices he's gone through. There
are some very sad moments with him where you feel his frustration and
hear his pain. I'm not too sure about the performance of Aaron
Taylor-Johnson as Anna's young lover, Count Vronsky. I say I'm not
sure because I find him absolutely detestable and to be a really
frustrating character, but perhaps that's the point? If he is the
embodiment of immoral lustful desires, perhaps he was not supposed to
be a likeable character, but rather just charming on the surface.
What I can say for certain is that he is a very different character
from Kick-Ass, which is the other role is well known for at this
time, so at least Taylor-Johnson shows some versatility in his parts. And apparently a couple years and a moustache go a long way to age a
person.
Anna Karenina is
a film with many layers and conflicted, sometimes tortured
characters, particularly Anna who, despite her immoral decisions, the
film challenges you to sympathize with her. It looks deep into the
devilish desires of humanity. I don't think after a single viewing I was able to get everything
there was to get. But it is a film I would watch again and could see
myself getting much more out of it. Don't get me wrong, I was able to
follow and I do feel like I understood it, but I'm told I missed some
moments that help round the film out. In particular, I want to pick
up more on the romantic subplot between Kitty and Konstantin Levin,
which is a fairly large part of the film that I barely touched on. It
doesn't connect too heavily on the main plot, but acts as an
interesting contrast to Karenina's story.
Now only one question
remains... why do all of these Russians sound British?
4.5 Stars
No comments:
Post a Comment