Anna co- & nbsp;the look of the killer A dark and heavy film adaptation - despite the fact that I watched it in several receptions. At first, everything went well: the first scenes seemed interesting and original shot, they involved the most striking characters of the film, and the typical British atmosphere superimposed on the plot without contradicting it. But pretty soon what is happening on the screen began to depress because of the dark colors, the slowness of the action, the repeated reception of the “drunken camera” when transmitting especially strong emotions of the characters and the abundance of unnecessary moments that contain nothing valuable. The series did not seem to me too aesthetic, I did not rest on the image of the eyes, and from the middle I increasingly wondered: did any of the British watch it to the end, for all the advantages available?
Mainly spoiled the impression of watching the actors chosen for the role of Anna and Vronsky. The first appearance of Anna in the film makes an even pleasant impression: although her appearance is specific and, coupled with her manners, is unlikely to generate a mad passion, but meekness and integrity speak of inner harmony, it is correlated with the role of a faithful wife and a caring mother. However, her further behavior gradually destroys the image. In conversation with Kitty, she behaves smugly, and in gestures, her gait, something vulgar flows through her. At the ball, she embarks on ambiguous conversations with Vronsky, which is impossible in itself, and in her face, the rigidity of nature, hidden viciousness and the makings of a future hysteria begin to be clearly seen - in short, she spiritually degrades in the film much faster than Leo Tolstoy imagined. After these transformations, it is much more difficult to empathize with her, and she evokes sympathy only in a couple of episodes in the finale, where Anna’s vulnerability and helplessness are accidentally well conveyed. In general, the character is created more rude and uncompromising. Only this Anna of the five seen confesses to her husband of treason, staring him in the face with open hatred, so that you begin to be afraid - as if she did not poison him instead of the vicissitudes of divorce.
Ideal Vronsky was played by Vasily Lanova, and to create a better image, I think, impossible. Kevin McKidd is far from perfect, not because he's a colorless blonde with cheeky eyes, but because he plays a different character. This is a frivolous person, practically not shown in his original environment, with unclear goals in life, with an unclear attitude to his own career. Everything about this Vronsky is unclear. Like Anna, you look for a double bottom, you don't feel true loyalty in him. Unpleasantly struck them too loosely shown relationship, although this is a claim rather to the screenwriter. Watching this couple was boring, and she did not want to sympathize. Perhaps that was the intention of the director?
Because one of the advantages of the series is a good, sustained line Levin. Finally, I got lucky with this character! Few things, however, survived his philosophical quest, but the relationship with Kitty and their family life is clearly opposed to the life of Anna and Vronsky. The image of Levin is revealed surprisingly successfully, and for foreign film adaptation – twice. The actor in this role is charming, accurate, and most importantly - sincere, and thanks to this he retains attention. I could be more specific, but I won’t be nagging. In my opinion, he managed both comic moments and serious scenes, but in my opinion, the game of “secretary” was especially charming – there is no doubt that this Levine is really in love with Kitty. We paid attention to Kitty. Little revealing her character before the engagement, focused on her growing up and entering the role of mistress of the estate. In this regard, the line of Nikolai Levin was very appropriate. The image of Nicholas, of course, was not very consistent with the book, but an attempt to convey his annoying, painfully destructive nature was made.
I had conflicting feelings about Karenin. Too young and beautiful, what's wrong here? Gradually, an image emerged – and I must say, a curious image of an eternally tired, ironic and withdrawn person – one of those who do not know how to awaken love to themselves because of the external coldness, no matter what storms and passions may clutter in their souls. He sincerely loves Anna, he is ready to forgive her and be supportive, but all these good deeds are wasted in nowhere, she does not perceive them, considering him callous and incapable of deep feeling (although in part this is just self-justification). But with the generosity that the hero showed in the film, it is not entirely clear that Countess Lydia Ivanovna so sharply converted him to the faith, which made him insensitive. Submitting to the will of others to self-denial is a sign of weakness and a certain limitation, but Karenin did not look weak, much less limited. For the character depicted, this turn seemed to me illogical.
It is worth noting Steve Oblonsky, in which one hundred percent Britishness and an unexpected hit in the book image are strikingly merged. It turned out a colorful character - a good-natured, cheerful businessman. However, it does not fit into all interiors: in the Moscow living rooms it looked natural, but in the village surroundings it already looked ridiculous. It is clear that this is not the original Steve, the defining words of which I would make the words sybarite and pamper. In this Oblonsky felt the business acumen of the inhabitant of the City of London, and not a drop of the Russian soul. The character is interesting.
It’s hard to pick out any memorable scenes in the film other than the very much liked “secretary” game, and that’s unfortunate, as the novel offers so many options. I was not surprised by the ball of Anna and Vronsky, nor the horse racing, nor the stage in the theater – by the way, replaced by an evening at Betsy’s. What, of course, looks fantastic: Anna would not dare to go alone to a place where you need not just passively look at the stage, but talk to many people. There were other minor alterations of the plot, but still it should be noted diligent transfer of material and great attention to the source. Not bad, but the British still shoot their literature better.