Visual presentation of well known stories is always a challenge to the people who present to us with real human faces and bodies and real voices of the characters whom often have images and tunes set in the minds of every reader of the stories, particularly those epics of master pieces. When such stories are presented in pictures, some people may find the faces, voices, and scenes resonate with the faces, voices, and scenes imagined in their minds. Others may find them drastically different. If the producers, directors, and actors of a movie are able to deliver something that confirms the readers’ imaginations, then they have achieved basic success. If in addition, they are able to convince those viewers with a preset bias, then they must have achieved a great success.
Anna Karenina is such a widely read novel that almost everyone who decided to see a movie made of it must has read the book. On the other hand, I doubt anyone who hasn’t read the book would be interested in seeing any movie based on it. Earlier I saw the most recent (2012) movie adaptation of the novel made by Joe Wright. Then I saw again a 1997 production of it by Bernard Rose. I wrote a piece on the 2012 version. After seeing the 1997 version, I cannot refrain myself from comparing the two versions.
The 1997 version is more loyal to the novel. The missing chapters in the 2012 version are presented in the 1997 version, e.g. the sojourns of Anna and Vronsky in Italy and Vronsky going to war after Anna’s death. The novel is really long and full of detailed descriptions and dialogs. But the major events are captured in both versions, the arrival of Anna to Moscow and the accident that killed a rail road worker, the rejection of Levin by Katy, the ball that revealed to the world the affection between Anna and Vronsky, the progression of the affair that resulted in Anna being pregnant, the horse race that sparked the rage of Mr. Karenin, Anna giving birth to her and Vronsky’s girl, the rejection of Anna and Vronsky by the society, the abandonment of Anna by Vronsky, and finally the death of Anna. Although the addition of the Italian sojourn and the final train trip of Vronsky going to war seem to make the story more complete, the 1997 version doesn’t really add much to the whole story. A novel that takes weeks or even months to read for most people cannot be fully and faithfully presented to the viewers in just a couple of hours. The 1997 version, although incorporated more stories, is actually shorter than the 2012 version. Thus many scenes are shown very briefly. To fans of Tolstoy, who mostly admire the author’s ability to describe the innermost thoughts of the characters in the book, those quick flashes don’t really aid the satisfaction of the viewers’ appetite.
It’s hard for an actor to use only facial expression and body movements to carry the sense of aggravation and other feelings to the viewers. The author had the advantage of using pages and pages of words to describe in detail all the feelings of a character to the reader, who may be immersed in such feelings for days while reading those chapters. The strong feelings, although most of them have long faded away since I read those chapters a long time ago, still linger in my mind. The chapters that describe Anna’s depression that led to her suicide are epic and gave Tolstoy the fame for his literal skills. Yet no movie producers, directors, and actors can find good ways for an actress to transfer the kind of despair and hopelessness that Anna felt to a TV or movie viewer, even to a most zealous fan of the story. The actress may opt to show a grim face, to drink a lot of alcohol, to throw a tantrum to try to play out the feelings of a woman who felt betrayed by her lover and gave up everything but gained nothing during the process of a love affair. Unless someone reads the book, I doubt in a short movie a viewer is able to fully appreciate the agony in Anna’s final moments when she jumps to the rail road tracks.
Thus a more dramatic and theatrical treatment of the story in the 2012 version is a form of presentation that is both easy to do and a better vehicle for carrying the spirit of the stories to the viewers. In making the whole story like scenes of a play on a stage, Joe Wright has the freedom to use exaggeration, dramatization, and symbolism to interpret the feelings of those characters. Comparing the two major events, the ball and the horse race, I would say that the theatrical 2012 version is better than the realism version of the 1997 version. The 1997 version is restricted by the idea that the ball must be performed like a ball in real life. As such, more burden is put on the three actors to act out the feelings of the main protagonists. But the 2012 version allows more liberally use of movie techniques to make the scene of the ball a more pleasing performance to the eyes of movie viewers. The dances are more elaborate, flamboyant, and exaggerated, thus the bedazzling moves of Anna and Vronsky not only strike the nerves of Ekaterina Shcherbatski, but also the movie audiences.
There is no actress ever in the world whose beauty matches that of Anna’s in the book. The beauty of Anna attracts every man beholds her and her gracefulness in her gait arouses the interest of every man who catches a glimpse of her walk. The elegance of her manner overwhelms the senses of all of her admires and the dignity of her demeanor is the envy of all the other ladies. Such is a woman presented to his readers by Tolstoy. Thus regardless how beautiful a face I see on the screen, that face disappoints me. But I have to admit that 1997 Marceau’s Anna is more beautiful than 2012 Knightley’s. On the other hand, I sensed a more Anna-like actress in Knightley, who presented a more strongly willed person, a more courageous woman who dares to challenge the society. I think the 2012 Vronsky is more like a playboy who may be more attracted to Anna than the 1997 Vronsky, who looks more gentlemanly that is more likely to attract Anna. Both are good choices but the 1997 Vronsky is older. I like Jude Law’s Karenin, who should be in his 40s, instead of the 1997’s Karenin, who is significantly older. I much like the 2012’s Levin. For some reason when I first saw him, that face is almost the same face I imaged when I read the novel. He is a young country gentleman and truly loves Katy. The 1997’s Levin on the other hand doesn’t seem to possess such qualities.
There are many other details that make these two productions quite different. The 2012 version uses more dramatization, e.g. the stamping of papers in Stiva’s office, the use of heavy thumping sound at tense moments. The 1997 version is definitely more like a regular motion picture drama and the 2012 is more like a stage play. Thus to summarize, I think the 2012 producers are more clever in using a non-movie like presentation with low production cost to make a decent show of the story. The 1997 producers definitely worked very hard in trying to portray a more realistic late 19th century Russia. Both should be good movies for the ardent old aged fans and dull and ancient to youngsters of Harry Potter fans. I saw both and liked both.
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”
