'Anna Karenina' - Movie Review

ONE might be led to think that because Tolstoy's tragic novel has been adapted enough times to make Tolstoy roll over in his grave*, Joe Wright's 2012 rendition has nothing new to offer. Well - one would be wrong. 

*Tolstoy eventually wrote that Anna Karenina was "an abomination that no longer exists for me".

With a quick Google search anyone can track all 12 of the previous big screen adaptations of Anna Karenina. And then there's the plays, radio broadcasts, TV adaptions, ballets, and even operas. Who knows, soon there will likely be the Anna Karenina Oscar awarded to the adapted screenplay which has been done to hell and back. 

Yet despite all this, Joe Wright's Anna Karenina is different. The differences, which are vast, come from the attitude Wright took in retelling the classic. Often when filmmakers take on a gigantic project such as this they are so overwhelmed and awe struck by the literary genius of Tolstoy that they just try and appease the Tolstoy-diehards and in the process make a safe film. In this instalment we see a filmmaker and script writer (Tom Stoppard) who seek to take risks and shape the film to their imagination. This is best seen in the decision to film much of the story in a 19th century theatre. 

This is a video created by Focus explaining how and why they built the set.

The streets, offices and homes of Moscow and St. Petersburg are recreated by elaborate stage sets, and it's only when we venture out to the rural Tolstoy-esque side of Russia that we leave the theatre and face reality. While it takes time to get used to seeing characters make their way across backdrops, around theatre props and up through the catwalk and backstage rigging, this creative styling works perfectly to recreate the falsity of Russian society and the fickleness of the elite. We get the feeling early on that all of Russian life is artificial and projected to be something you'd find on a stage.

If ever there was a shot which summed up a time period - this is it. You can see how Russian high society attempted to copy French parlours.

But the film is not just another flashy costume design period flick (even though it just won Best Costume Design at the Oscars). The camera hustles through the recreated world and around the stage with reckless abandon, while the dresses, suits and night attire are contrasted intriguingly with the rural Russia of Constantine Levin - begging the same questions of materialism we ask of ourselves today. The music helps to intensify the performances and heighten the passion between the adulteress and her man boy-in-uniform. But perhaps what is most bedazzling about Wright's rendition is that he uses all these creative elements to turn a 900 page novel into a frantic two hours of compelling and utterly sublime tragedy... of Shakespearan proportions! 

It's all in the eyes - Keira's got it.

The catalyst in this tragedy is also arguably the most famous adulteress in all of literature (although Madame Bovary might challenge such a claim), Anna Karenina. Anna is played by a distinctly darker looking Keira Knightley, whose slender build fits the elegant gowns of the time to perfection. However, it is Keira's ability to transform her smouldering dark eyes to possess the fragility, passion and madness of Anna which wins over audiences. She may not look like the Anna we conjured in our minds but she more than fulfils the 'demonic' nature of her personality after she gives in to the 'love' she cannot deny. After hearing a lecturer drone on about character arcs yesterday, I feel it is my duty to point out that there is no sadder arc than that of Anna's. We feel her trauma, we warn her about Vronsky, we throw our hands in the air at Karenin and sob at the untimely arrival of a certain train. 

The men who surround Anna are as baffling as the society we are thursted into. Oblonsky's infidelity at the start of the film not only leads Anna to Vronsky but it also foreshadows what dominates the film. And it's sad that Anna's love triangle consumes the film because the relationship between Levin and Kitty is what sold me on the book the first time round. Levin is, after all, something of an auto-biographical sketch of Tolstoy at the time. Domhnall Gleeson, who plays Levin, never really makes the cut for me. He has some seriousness about himself but after reading the book I feel the soul of Levin has been cut out to be replaced by a boy who is just consumed by a girl. I suppose this is when I urge the viewer to read the book because the transformation of Levin possesses depth of which I've never seen in a novel since. 

The best actors eventually take ugly roles - he's a long way from Alfie!

The highest praise goes deservedly to Jude Law who plays Anna's conservative and pharisaic husband better than I could have ever imagined. Wasn't it just yesterday that we were hearing about Jude's fiance leaving him after he was caught with the nanny? And now he plays a character who stops at nothing to defend the old order and cripple his cheating partner - ironic! 

It's in the way Jude walks and talks that I'm convinced I couldn't have conjured a better picture of Karenin whilst reading the book. His hands are kept behind his back in a Napoleonic fashion, and his back is slightly lowered as if he's so deep in thought that his head is weighing him down. In a movie which moves frantically to-and-fro, here is a character who is purposely slow and patient - in essence he's the perfect politician. And then, after all the pomp and grandeur of Karenin - where he announces to Anna that they "are bound together by god and this can only be broken by a crime against god!", comes the line which shatters audiences everywhere,

"What did I do to deserve this?" 

We can shout back at Karenin that he defends an order which does not give 'love' a chance, but instead we are left silent and feel for him. This is the beauty of Tolstoy, there is no black and white - only grey.

In contrast with Karenin's lack of visible appeal and passionless life is the Casanova of high society, Count Vronsky - Anna's lover. Perfectly dressed in silky smooth cavalry frocks, and possessing blond curls to boot, Vronsky wastes no time in using his looks to challenge Dorian Gray to a game of sexual hedonism - the ultimate target being a married woman. The sexuality and eroticism between Anna and Vronsky has never been done in such an unabashed way - but that's Hollywood in 2012 for you. Heck HBO would call this movie soft-core compared to its highly sexual, yet not always relevant, sex scenes. 

 

The balls were spectacular and really captured the intensity...

But it was that dance between Vronsky and Anna - the one where the other dancers froze - that stole the show!

Joe Wright's Anna Karenina is a daring rendition of a classic which studies the different types of love (and lust?). The core themes of true love and love lost run deep and keep audiences grasping their armrests - but what the book achieves in delving into the agonising struggle of the destitute, faith in God and the social and political issues of imperial Russia aren't quite captured in the film. Audiences feel the tragedy and get a sense of the conflict between the sacred and the profane but they never quite own it. 

7/10

'Django Unchained' - Movie Review

          What does one attempt after he rewrites the script of World War II and leaves Hitler riddled with vengeful Jewish bullets? Well, if you are screenwriter, director, producer and cameo actor Quentin Tarantino you head back to America and tell a similarly outrageous tale of 19th century slavery.

If you want "responsible" you'll want to wait until the much anticipated Lincoln reaches Australian shores later this week. I'm sure the less brazen Steven Spielberg will deliver those goods. So to all you grumpy historians who spend your days lulling around on tenure and picking apart journal articles as if they are blackheads, cover your eyes and sit tight for a Lincoln review. But if you want excitement, unshackled depravity and a salute to your Dad's beloved spaghetti westerns then check out Django Unchained. 

"All my movies are achingly personal." - Tarantino.

By now we all know what to expect from Tarantino: blood soaked walls, bodies flying through the air like ballerinas, Samuel L. Jackson's liberal use of the term "motherfucker", non linear plot structures, a musical storm, and a German (Chistoph Waltz - who is actually Austrian). 

Dr. J? Or... Django?

Django (Jamie Foxx) is the hero of this swashbuckling tale. He bursts onto the screen as a shackled (Dr. J doppelganger -->) slave, but after a terrifically long and old school opening credits sequence he is rescued from this life by a German dentist, Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz). It turns out that Schultz hasn't practiced dentistry in five years and instead is trying his hand at bounty hunting. This all leads to a run-around-the-south tale of bounty hunting - until Django decides to set out on his quest to save his wife from the sadistic and charismatic hands of Monsieur Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). What ensues is a tasty script and a whole bunch of "motherfuckers" shooting each other with sexy pistols. 

Yet one can't leave a discussion on the plot without discussing the fact that Tarantino has finally broken the streak and gone for a linear structure. There's no multiple perspectives, no time jumps, no chapters, no flashback trails (well actually there's short and snappy flashbacks) - there's none of the tricks which have made Tarantino such an elusive storyteller. 

They probably had just watched Tarantino's scene...

Let's say someone asked if you'd be keen to watch a big budget revenge movie - what would you say?

I'd probably pass it up in search of something a bit more spellbinding. Tarantino knows this, and so in his infinite wisdom, where he works in archetypes and reaffirms his life long allegiance to spaghetti westerns, Tarantino has created a revenge film which pushes the barrier and sustains our attention. And unlike other revenge flicks, Django is meaningful. I've got three examples of how this is so...

- Firstly, Django gives righteous vengeance to a slave - when has that been done? It wasn't that long ago when this would've been unfathomable, and definitely unfilmable. 

- Secondly, the morality in this movie, when you get past the torture and bloodshed, is... sweet. The filmmaker took on the job of representing and reflecting on one of the darkest and most shameful periods in American history. Some will say he makes slavery a laughing matter, others, such as filmmaker Spike Lee, wont watch it because it's "insulting", but slavery is cast in an appropriate light. And with characters such as Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson), stereotypes are blown up and in a roundabout way we are left asking questions. That's brave. 

Here in Australia we couldn't even get our Prime Minister (John Howard) to accept the horrific treatment of Aboriginals. Instead our fearful PM told us that we shouldn't reflect in that kind of manner because it takes away from our achievements.

- Thirdly, depth and meaning is created between the lovable German and his black sidekick. Here we venture into modern day, colourless brothership... and even sacrificial love. For argument's sake, take that scene when Stephen is exposing Django's plan to Candie - Stephen can't for the life of him work out why Schultz is going along with Django's plan to save Broomhilda. 

"I want to do movies that deal with America's horrible past with slavery... but do them like spaghetti westerns, not like big issue movies. I want to do them like they're genre films, but they deal with everything that America has never dealt with because it's ashamed of it, and other countries don't really deal with because they don't feel they have the right to." - Tarantino.

Before I get carried away and crown Django, let me point out one glaring issue - it goes for 2 hours and 45 minutes. Yes, we are entertained by an unchained filmmaker, but it still ought to be a 2 hour film. I like that Tarantino lets scenes run longer than most filmmakers would be comfortable with, but the story still doesn't fit a movie of this length. Maybe Tarantino caught the Life of Pi, Hobbit and Les Miserable bug? 

Wait! there's another glaring issue - Tarantino's acting. Why does he keep doing this? Watch out for the most obnoxious Aussie accent since Steve Irwin. 

Apart from the director's off kilter cameo, though, the acting is something to remember. Can we go ahead and say that Christoph Waltz is in his element when Tarantino's calling the shots? In The Green Hornet and The Three Musketeers Waltz appears to mail in one dimensional and cliche performances. And folks, Hans Landa is resurrected in Django, as the wit, mischievous humility, line delivery and diction is back in a big way. So keep your eyes pealed for a similarly brilliant start in Django, as Dr. Schultz frees some slaves, kills a small-town sheriff and pussy whips a US Marshall. In fact, if Waltz is guilty of anything in Django it's that he outshines his sidekick, Jamie Foxx.

Now, when I say that Waltz outshines Foxx I don't mean to dismiss Foxx's performance altogether. He has a physical presence as Django, but he just isn't a gun-slinging hero. At least not with that angelic voice! For example, take that scene where Django unleashes on the Brittle boys - Foxx has the physical presence for it, but as soon as he opens his mouth it all falls apart. The scene is meant to come to a crescendo in Django's one-liner, "You die well, boy", but instead it falls flat. See, whereas Leonardo DiCaprio completely embodied the sadistic slave owner, Foxx is never as convincing and always seems to be a dollar short. 

The Good Guys always get the majestic shots.

When asked by The Sydney Morning Herald how he goes about playing someone as despicable and evil as John J. Candie, Leonardo responds, "Look at some of the greatest roles that people have played, the ones people talk about - Orson Welles in Citizen Kane or Jake LaMotta [Robert De Niro] in Raging Bull. These are not very likeable characters and you don't need to become that guy - you just need to understand the part of their psyche that explains what motivates them."  

When Tarantino decided on DiCaprio to play the wildly charismatic antagonist, he dubbed the character, "The Boy Emperor". Baby face DiCaprio brings this chilling character to life with immense southern charm, quirky arrogance and a look which could make a flower wilt. Leo is helped along by a surprisingly strong performance from Samuel L. Jackson, who plays Candie's helpful and equally evil black servant. It appears Jackson, like Waltz, is also in his element when playing a showman under Tarantino. But this parrot mimicking servant is sure to rustle some feathers as he enjoys calling his fellow African-Americans "niggers", "motherfuckers" and "bitches". In fact, when Stephen isn't sitting on the shoulder of Candie, he's giving everyone the kind of eye popping, "nigger hating" look you'd expect from a crusty old white gent from the time.

The flower has wilted!

The 'nigger on a horse' look.

Django Unchained will give middle America nightmares, but is that a bad thing? Tarantino continues to use his winning formula of dark humor and grotesque violence to shock audiences and make us laugh at otherwise serious subjects. Nothing demonstrates this mixture better than the hilarious KKK scene, where Don Johnson, Jonah Hill and their band of merry racists squabble over their white-bagged fashion choice well into the night. 

The film didn't reach the heights of Inglourious Basterds, partly because of it's long winded linear structure, which leaves audiences wanting Tarantino's nonlinear array of tricks. Yet like his previous film, Tarantino shows that he can still bring history to life in a way which most other filmmakers would never even dream of.

8/10