Watching the recent film version of Anna Karenina, I couldn’t help but think, “And I spent all those hours reading (the listening to) this classic just to be sure I’d read it before the movie? Why?” The film initially gave me a feeling as if I was living somewhere in the mind of a person trapped in an alternate universe characterized by fantasy and perhaps even the recreational use of mind-altering substances. But I stuck with it, and slowly the cadence of the bizarre film’s production began to speak to me as Anna’s life on this “stage.” The more I watched, the more the novel came to life for me and the more I began to appreciate this odd portrayal of the story of Anna and those around her.
Admittedly, I still have frustration with the story itself; Anna is quite the whiny “poor me” character who made a vow but finds passion elsewhere. (Okay, so that’s a simplification. I could go deeper, but I’ll spare you that soapbox. I assure you it’d offend much too much for this forum.) Keira Knightley does this whine well. No, I care no more for Anna in her performance, but that’s the character, not the actor. Jude Law is a wonderful silent husband. The rest of the cast seems mainly to just support—other than Levin’s character. But perhaps this is because I like Levin; I’m not sure this deals with the actor’s role.
The primary disappointment to me was the short treatment of the others’ stories. They seemed such a primary part of the novel, but without the key names of Knightley and Jude Law, those other stories are just cast aside. This is where, bizarre story-telling aside, I believe the adaptation falls short.
Be warned—this takes some patience to get “into” enough to appreciate. But if given a bit of time, it’s worth this interesting take on, yes, a classic novel.