I haven’t read the novel since school, so I don’t remember exactly how Tolstoy portrayed Anna Karenina. In the series, Anna seems to me quite different, unlike the vaguely remembered Anna from the novel. The fact that the director deliberately gave her modern features is almost beyond doubt – I do not think that this is an interpretation of the actress herself. Perhaps it is legitimate, at all the will of the Director. But that's not the point.
I don't remember Anna being so selfish and so boring in the novel. It is difficult for her to understand, but it is because of her trials and experiences that she is simply obliged to understand Vronsky, whom she loves, as she constantly declares. Karenina, for some reason, she understands, sympathizes with him, hates him, and does not want to understand her beloved. Anna constantly talks about herself, tormented Vronsky with claims that she is not so and not so loved, that they must remember her every second and compare their lives only with her desires. But if she loves Vronsky, she should wish him happiness too! She should understand his desire to be professional, to get satisfaction from a full life and work! That's what loving people always do!
She doesn't love her daughter from a loved one - that's absurd! She doesn’t want children from a loved one. She wants love for herself, and doesn’t she owe him anything? He doesn’t like it, and that’s another story.
I'm not sure Tolstoy wanted to deliberately show a tantrum that contradicts itself in every moment of life. Something, apparently, has not been finalized by the director, a great smart girl, whom I respect immensely. Something personal may have played a role (forgive me if anything). But Anna was disappointed in this film. Because of these inconsistencies faded and the image of Vronsky, performed by the talented Matveev. Vronsky looks somewhat flawed throughout the film.
In general, I liked the film, the hand of the master feels definitely.
Free interpretation of the novel, feelings did not see, despite the professional quality of the actors, memorized dialogue, and in the eyes - emptiness. Bleaky, flat, superficial, and this is even with such .... "detailed" plot (or artistic twist) of the writer. She was always trying to chew or yawn )
I read the audience reviews and decided to present my impression of this grandiose reading of the classics.
First, there is no need to compare the works of major artists. I consider Shakhnazarov a director who can be put in a number of recognized classics, and even then each of them is somewhat inferior to Karen Georgievich.
This is the first time I have seen such a deeply Christian interpretation of a woman’s fall. The first struggle with the flowing passion of a pure and decent woman is very reliably reflected, then the conscious concession to vice and the slow transformation of the personality that surrendered to passion. Sin tightens and overshadows reason, Anna loses the ability to hear and understand others and talks only about her desire to be happy, about the desire to stay with Vronsky and not to be separated from her beloved son. She accepts no objections, turns into a person living according to the law "I want so." Her irrepressible love degenerates into hatred not only for those who condemn, but also for compassionate people who try to help. Inability to realize that she is ruining the lives of those who love her. Elizaveta Boyarskaya coped with this task perfectly. I can imagine the mental cost of this job. I wish the actress more worthy of her talent roles.
Great work by Vitaly Kishchenko as Karenin! I didn't know this actor before. Once I saw and fell in love with Andrei Panin in one of Shakhnazarov’s films, now here is Kishchenko. Here in the reviews there was an opinion that Karenin can not be a positive hero. Who told you that, Lev Nikolayevich? Re-read the novel, Karenin is a very complex and noble man. Here, as it seems to me, the depth of awareness of the complexity of Karenin’s situation and the lightness of the sufferings of young Vronsky are very correctly compared (also not an accidental choice of the actor, Matveev came to the court here).
I would put this film “ten” in three nominations: Shakhnazarova for directing, Boyarskaya for the main female role and Kishchenko for the best male.
Adult Sergey Karenin, a man with a large and wounded heart in childhood, was well shown by Kirill Grebenshchikov.
To all who read this, I wish you love yours and the living. And God bless them!
In many countries, the film adaptation of the works of classical writers is a win-win option. It will always be looked at and discussed properly. Who played, what they were dressed in, where they were filmed, how far they deviated from the book, whether the director managed to convey the main idea.
How can a director do that?
He's the director to decide how. Whether he will bet on the choice of actors, whether he will use a smart screenwriter (so that there are no questions), or decide to impress a potential viewer with powerful special effects. Combination ' just a little bit' often it turns out to be inexpressive and works on the definition of ' pass'/' the next' thus, not particularly Western in the soul of the viewer.
Although, in theory, it is she in relation to the adaptation of the classics should give just a completely different effect. With the help of modern technologies, you can more accurately transfer the objects of the past century, etc. As a result, the viewer can radically rethink the whole work and its main message. In my opinion, this is what happens every time with each new adaptation of the novel by L.N. Tolstoy.
The last incarnation of Karenina on the screen from the director Karen Shakhnazarov is called ' free adaptation' and leads its narrative from one of the main characters - Prince Vronsky.
Here we see, on the one hand, the exact following of the plot of Tolstoy’s novel, and on the other, a really free fantasy on the topic of the fate of Vronsky after the death of his beloved. But at the same time, in the film adaptation, several main characters are completely absent. The intersection of the novel with the story of Veresaev ' On the Japanese War' is a fantasy in its pure form.
It is difficult to evaluate a film simply as a means of entertainment or indulging in need according to mood. Here, both when watching and after it, there is a stormy mental process, coupled with various associations, comparisons with previous films on the same topic, etc.
In this attempt of the film adaptation, the entire tragic chain of events of the work is clearly shown: the setting and development of the love relationships of the main characters, the destruction of the Karenina family, the entire depth of her tragedy as a person and in society. A monstrous nervous load is doing its job: she torments herself, her beloved Vronsky, a husband with whom she cannot break completely, without deciding to divorce. All this leads her to frequent quarrels with Vronsky. She is irritated by the fact that everyone accepts him in society, and she is no one, fed by constant suspicions about the possible infidelity of her beloved. On the other hand, Karenina is tormented by separation from her son. And in the novel, she begins to use morphine to relieve suffering.
And now few have the inner core and self-control to endure such pressure. But for those times, Karenina was just at a dead end. In fact, she ruined her life. Only a strong life partner could pull her out of the trap she fell into. Perhaps Vronsky was not so strong.
We are modern humans. Now everyone knows what leads to drug addiction. It is very difficult for a healthy person to commit suicide. But from prolonged use of morphine, the psyche becomes unstable and therefore such a tragic outcome due to a quarrel with Vronsky became quite possible. But I don't think Karenina could have done that without morphine.
In this film adaptation, this important detail was simply omitted. But the game of Elizaveta Boyarskaya, who embodied in bright colors all the inconsistencies, awkwardness and nervous breakdown of the main character was simply unbearable. The actor must (in the best traditions) convey the whole range of feelings of the hero, so that the viewer believes and does not doubt anywhere. However, here we see only a modern, emancipated quirky woman, like the wife of the settled ' the new Russian'. She with the assertiveness of a PR director climbs into men's affairs, forgetting about tact and decency, showing with all her appearance that everyone owes her. Could the woman of that century, who was somehow of a high society (let us not forget that Karenin was a high-ranking official) have had such manners? I'm very doubtful.
Since the whole action takes place around Anna, the performance of all other actors is particularly contrasted against her background.
For example, it is difficult to imagine the game of Victoria Isakova without the stretching plume of bitchiness of her heroines. And this may have prevented her from playing with 100% convincing image of Dolly in the first series of the film. In her eyes, one could read a slight laughing, perhaps, rather than participating in a heartfelt conversation with Anna Karenina. But in the future, Dolly did not cause any doubts. We see a beautiful embodiment of a decent secular lady, not deprived of virtue.
Everyone played their roles perfectly. In terms of acting skills here I would single out just Maxim Matveev.
If you do not delve into the real stories and a number of prototypes that served Tolstoy for description in the novel, then generally speaking, the version of the film adaptation suffers from the flaws of the script and the above-mentioned game of the main character.
There is a remark on Lurex in costumes (then there was no such thing), but since the series is a free adaptation, and not a documentary, then, in general, and fine.
Despite all the obvious ' pluses ' series, I would not recommend it.
If this series refers to the film adaptation of Leo Tolstoy, then it is better to leave hope and not watch, this is not a film adaptation of the novel, this is an attempt by the director to look at the events from Vronsky and Sergey Karenin. And if you look from this angle, then Shakhnazarov can even say thank you for his work.
My mistake was that initially I tried to look at the film adaptation and, of course, this iron rejection and irritation, the main problems of the novel are omitted and the absence of the hero Levin, as well as the family relationship of Steve Oblonsky, only emphasizes this. The second time I looked from a different angle - how it was to live Sergey Karenin, about the mother of which the whole world was talking, how the father explained to him what happened, what the boy remembers about throwing his mother, and how people explained to him what happened. Thirty years later, he meets a man who was the cause and participant of the events, his enemy – who took away his mother, peace and caused the death of his father. He wants to get answers to the questions he has. And from the dialogues of Vronsky with Karenin, a certain story emerges, in which everything is also not smooth and unambiguous, alas. Vronsky's truth is his view of events, his interpretation of a woman's behavior, and his pain for what happened. Is it easier for these two from their conversations - probably yes, one spoke out, the other heard.
Shakhnazarov deliberately changes the ending of the novel, for the sake of meeting heroes on the fields of the Russo-Japanese War, but how else can you bring adults together for a conversation? And I can't blame him for that, in this case, "he's an artist, he has the right." Moreover, he does not whitewash Vronsky, putting in the mouth of Sergei Karenin a phrase about the funeral of his daughter, he only increased the anguish of Alexei, about what happened to Anna. As if to wonder, what was it that flashed the comet before my eyes that destroyed the lives of innocent people? Whether Anna's caprice, not understanding her Alexei or fatality, which does not ask for opinions and comes mercilessly.
I will note the excellent work of costume artists, decorators, who created an excellent entourage of the XIX century for the series. The visual perception was excellent.
From the acting work I note in the first lines of Kirill Grebenshchikov (Sergey Vronsky) and Vitaly Kishchenko (Alexey Karenin), they managed to create a certain chemistry of the characters of the father and son. And as much as the father was a gentle man who tried to keep at least the semblance of marriage to the very end, so the second one turned out to be tough, bearing dislike through the years. Secondly, it is Maxim Matveev (Alexey Vronsky), if the age Vronsky was good in the performance of Maxim, then at a young age he lacked the charisma of his hero, he periodically fell out of the image. And finally, Elizaveta Boyarskaya (Anna Karenina), my favorite, oh and ah, it is impossible for her to play such roles, despite the experience of acting she is not Karenina ever, a hysterical young lady in the entourage of the century, almost all scenes falling out of the image, but ... maybe it was thought to show how difficult it was to understand her Vronsky? I don’t think there was love then.
Over. The series is peculiar, which you can watch, at least because of the director’s interpretation, you should not wait for revelations, you should scold for deviation from the text of the novel too, but the work is definitely not the worst for TV.
This series, if I am not mistaken, was the thirty-first adaptation of the novel “Anna Karenina”. The unquenchable interest in the great work cannot but please, but if the adaptations of the XX century in most cases justified themselves, then the latest attempts made in our time, we have to be slightly perplexed. Obviously, the authors of the latest incarnations had to come up with a certain highlight that would significantly distinguish their own creation from its predecessors. So Joe Wright transferred the main action from St. Petersburg to the theater stage, and Karen Shakhnazarov recalled that no one had ever interpreted this story from Vronsky’s point of view thirty years after the incident. It sounds original, but did the latter manage to implement his idea?
The action begins in Manchuria in the Russian-Japanese war, where the already adult son of the Karenin couple Sergey Alexeevich meets the lover of his deceased mother, a man whom he hated all his life - Count Alexei Kirillovich Vronsky. Between them begins a conversation, length of eight episodes, before which Vronsky warns both the failed stepson and the viewer that each has his own truth. But heed the words of the count and, relaxing, enjoy the spectacle prevents one important point: the director dared to interpret the characters in his own way. It is through the eyes of Shakhnazarov, and not Vronsky, as they try to present us, the viewer sees Anna as an absolutely intolerable hysteria, who only screams about the gravity of her situation. Every director has the right to their own vision of a work, but even directors are not allowed to distort the character of the characters, because, taking on the famous classics, they take on a huge responsibility. Shakhnazarov not only presented us his slightly twisted version, but also continued the story where Tolstoy put a bold point, and this is completely inexcusable.
Another embarrassing point is the very narrative of events, that is, the Russian-Japanese war and, in fact, the conversation between Karenin and Vronsky. It is not known why it was necessary to combine the two events, which are not connected. Perhaps the war was needed in order for Alexei Kirillovich to remember and finally think about his past in such a situation, but this method, where the aged protagonist tells about his life-being, is a little outdated, or something. Or just tired, because it is used in almost every third film. Needless to say, the line of Levin and Kitty was completely cut from history, since Vronsky could not be an observer of their relationship. But there are many other episodes that he could not have witnessed either, but they are still featured in the series. This is evidence of the most common laziness of screenwriters who did not take advantage of the excellent opportunity to make their work better, for Kitty was almost considered Vronsky’s bride after all. The only mention of her persona in the last series is like slapping the character, her God. They say they did you a favor, Princess Shcherbatskaya, and did not forget to mention it. But a singing Chinese girl, who begins to irritate from the second series, we wrote in the script. Like without her, Chinese girls, in Anna Karenin.
As for the actors, none of them show anything supernatural. Victoria Isakova did well with her Dolly, and Vitaly Kishchenko turned out not the worst Karenin. Elizabeth Boyarskaya, of course, is very beautiful, but she could not find Anna in herself. The dialogues, most of which are written by writers rather than Tolstoy, only prevent her from doing so. She seems to be saying everything right, but she feels like she doesn’t understand. On the set itself, there was not that understanding of the novel that is simply necessary to get a satisfactory result. As a result, it becomes obvious that, in addition to beautiful costumes and the overall picture, there is nothing to enjoy in the series, and instead of the truly unhappy and deep main character on the screen, some psychopath with a smoked voice is convulsing. In the utopian future, I would like to shoot the classics were taken by those who felt it with their gut, and not just for lack of their own ideas.
6 out of 10
We're trying to repeat the story of Poor Nastya, don't touch us.
Unfortunately, the modern hype to modernize and / or change the film adaptation of classical works of literature will never go anywhere, this can be left in the past, because everyone wants to touch what has eternal greatness, creating a kind of free advertising. It would seem that it is easiest for a non-Russian director or a person who knows the mentality and traditions of the author’s nationality to embody works that took their place in the Golden Collection of Literature on screens, but domestic filmmakers have forgotten about the talent and skill of adapting the text for a film performance. This happens when we take a story and, simplifying it, expect praise and unrealistic fees for a minimum of effort.
But it is worth disassembling structured, although trying to disassemble what the authors themselves did not bother to put in order is almost a charitable act.
So, we take a story with a rehearsal plot, where pitfalls play a significant role, as they reveal the characters. But, according to the creators of this product, explaining the character and motives of the characters is not a particularly important part, since everyone understands who it is and what. This raises the question of the target audience. If this is an adult generation (or at least children of the 90s), then the failure could be predicted on the approval of the script, since this series does not bring anything new and outstanding, it is impossible to see a new approach to the transmission of the plot, new facets of the plot disclosure, etc. The product for people of this age turned out to be very mediocre, and any person familiar with the text will be bored to watch what is happening on the screen on the minute of the 20th first series, it can be delayed by either the desire to make sure of poor-quality implementation, or, I don’t know, too strong interest in domestic cinema, when the moviegoer enjoys only the shell, not the filling. As it may seem, such a goal was absurd, so I think the attention was aimed at the younger generation, which ceased to appreciate the study of classical literature, and reading in their everyday life is completely absent, they are satisfied with watching videos / films / series and may well feed on one visual. Well, this is more real, but then you can throw the creators a bunch of questions, why not just simplify the morality and plots of this work, but also twist the character of the characters beyond recognition. There is a feeling that the authors decided to show how they would like to see the story of Anna Karenina, but then remove the word ' screening' from your product, indicate that you take only the motive as a basis, and then try to turn your nonsense into an author's film, although there would be fewer claims to you.
There is no point in talking about the quality of shooting, editing and acting of actors, since the skills in staging and producing dramas, the plot of which is based on the 18th-19th centuries, domestic filmmakers left at the level ' Poor Nastya', which produced success, and everyone decided to align themselves with the numbers, not modern realities.
But there is a place to say about color correction, which, at least on the primary episodes, was made, which shows the work and contribution of at least one part of the crew.
If without spoilers and angry phrases, then it is worth watching only in the evening with the family, and then one or two episodes, and then you can safely include the same ' Kingdom' or ' White Princess' as there you will find more for yourself than here.
When digging in our souls, we often dig up something that would lie there imperceptibly. – L. N. Tolstoy
What's the fuss here? Elizaveta Boyarskaya did not play that way. Shakhnazarov did not put the film ... What is it? Where are your thoughts on the story?
I'm not a professional critic, but I always write my opinion after a while, when ' the storm of emotions ' calm down. At first, the film caught on, but the ending was not very happy. I would write a negative review, but rethinking everything, let’s say, for the idea, the plot, I will put a positive one.
Yes, Elizaveta Boyarskaya is not a master of the game in this film (I have not watched many films with her, I will not judge in general). Somewhere it overplays, and somewhere on the contrary. In general, at the end 'porridge'. When she played the sick Anna Karenina, I had the impression that Anna Karenina was mentally ill. But we all know that this is not the case in the book. You can't talk about the game.
But the plot... I've seen a lot of reviews that say it's not a book, etc. Why do you have to write a classic book?? Where does it say that? The writers decided to show us their Anna Karenina, or rather the love branch, the story of Vronsky. I have long wanted to see something like this. As I wrote on one site, if you are a conservative person, it is better not to look. But if you like the classic on 'new fret', then look.
Although I can’t agree more that there was a joint with the plot. Something still should not have been (spoiler will not), but this fragment in the film is where Vronsky comes home (when watching you may notice).
The overall impression of the film is neutral. Something somewhere ' not finished ' We hope that in ten years they will be even better!
If you do something, you have to do it better than you did before. Isn't it?! If in 2017 you begin to do repairs in a new apartment, you will not paint the prefabricated floor with brown enamel and whiten the walls with the ceiling with lime, with the addition of blue, right?!
So, this film is far worse than anything else that was made before under the title ' Anna Karenina' in every way. List everything - which is worse - does not make sense, because you can make a separate doc. film on the theme ' What in Anna Karenina Shakhnazarova is worse than in the films made before him' It is worth noting only the key shortcomings and shortcomings:
1) the speeches of the actors, with a very clear frame, color and intelligibility of the picture, sound as readable on paper or logged; behind them there is no proper feeling, cordiality and naturalness;
2) the main character - absolutely does not correspond to the female image of the novel by Leo Tolstoy! Sorry for the harshness, but Lisa Boyarskaya - this is not the place! Well, it was possible to give her some kind of secondary role (I won’t say the role of a gentle maid or a cook); this fact just breaks the film at the very beginning, and you just don’t want to look further (no offense!).
(3) To Karenin and Vronsky - also a lot of claims! Sorry, Karen Georgievich, but your choice of people for the role of such heroes is very, very doubtful, softly speaking!
4) color and clear picture, music, brightness of images (with their absolute unsuitability for the roles played!!!) - little and clumsily pull the film to the rank ' cinema'. This is no longer a movie, but some variation on the theme ' What happens if you experiment'
Nothing more to say, alas! For those who like it, look; even if it is a frank creative marriage for a director like Shakhnazarov, at least the narrative carries an unshakable morality and vital wisdom, so brilliantly created by Leo Tolstoy and so mediocrely used by modern Russian filmmakers.
There is certainly something in the film that I liked; well, for example, the good panoramas and interiors, the places where the action takes place, causes a certain degree of freshness of the look, and even trust in what is happening; there are other undoubted advantages, but they also pale and are lost to the scale of talentlessness and poaching, which I described above, and which is quite rightly conveyed by all who left a negative comment on this film!
Inappropriate actress for the role of Anna Karenina.
The film is well made. It was nice to see the role played by every actor except Anna Karenina.
In the novel by Leo Tolstoy, this character appeared before me in the image of an unhappy woman who so lacked love, passionate romantic relationships. That for this she decided on a despicable act - treason. But it's not about action, it's about image. Anna Karenina is a very gentle, weightless woman with good manners. Sensual and serene. Association with a pretty harmless doll.
As for the actress who plays the heroine of the novel, such a comparison cannot be made. Appearance is a factor that does not allow to draw a parallel. A face with sharp, clearly expressed contours does not allow the viewer to imagine the harmlessness and tenderness of the character, on the contrary, causes disgust, aggression and rudeness at first sight. And the voice, what a terrible, rude manlike voice. In the performance of Elizaveta Boyarskaya, Anna Karenina seems to me tough, rude, militant and selfish, a woman, quite differently than in the novel. And the game itself is in the movie. In general, my opinion is that the actress was unsuccessfully selected for the role of Anna Karenina. Because of this, it was not possible to convey to the viewer all the sensuality of the character and cause sympathy.
I wanted to read Tolstoy’s novel just because it was interesting to watch the series. For full understanding, you always need to read a book. I was hoping for a complete coincidence with the novel and a great acting.
Let’s start with the fact that Kitty and Levina (and then other heroes) just crossed out. Yes, the reason is that Vronsky knew nothing about them. But to show the acquaintance of Kitty and Karenina was simply necessary! After all, it was because of Kitty and Vronsky that Anna went home after that ball. This scene could show the old Anna, who would not allow herself to destroy someone else's love.
Let's get to the heroes. Karenina doesn't look like the one in the novel. In the novel, Karenina is a sweet, kind, strong woman with a rod that everyone likes and knows how to win over everyone (she even Levina fell in love with herself for a moment!). In the end, Karenina is a desperate woman, rejected by everyone, she can not find help and support even in Vronsky. Her bouts of jealousy are like a cry for help. Boyarskaya was not able to give Karenin Lev Nikolaevich. Only in the 7th and 8th series it is revealed in places.
Vronsky was not well played either. His vanity is nowhere to be seen. There is no love between Karenina and Vronsky. She should be in looks, gestures. But there's a hint at the ball. But it all started on the train! That's where they fell in love. But the views in the film do not show this at all!
Karenin turned out too tyrannical, generosity is almost not felt. I have the least complaints about this hero.
4 out of 10 for music, costumes and scenery alone.
I cannot help but stand up for Shakhnazarov and Boyarskaya!
I consider it my civic duty to balance this article with numerous reviews on the Internet that outrage and surprise me – to the core of my soul. Is there really so little left in our once very spiritualized society, real connoisseurs of art?
Or, why are people so angry now?
I am so angry that I am not afraid to be rude; they are not afraid. They need to fight back. Just as a small locust, by its multiplicity, can knock down a powerful and beautiful century-old oak, so a large cattle can knock down a great artist, with enormous potential, subtle and therefore always fragile.
I have nothing against ordinary people who drink beer at the screens and loudly rejoice in goals scored during football or cry during a soap opera. These people do not pretend to be judges and do not pose a threat to anyone. I am outraged by pseudo-intellectuals who consider themselves “connoisseurs”, who “influence” with their opinion and together, with their combined catastrophic number, represent a serious force, and therefore a threat to the fragile, refined and very few talent in our society.
Honestly, when I heard that Lisa Boyarskaya was going to play Anna Karenina, my first reaction was also indignation: ‘What have you done! It will not be Anna, but a plastic consumer!
Next thought: “How brave, though!”
Despite the negative mood, I stayed at the screen. I couldn't move. Something fascinated and attracted. I didn't care. It was interesting... curious... curious...
It didn't come to me right away. The film penetrated into my being - gradually. As dawn comes. How the evening goes down. It seems like nothing happens... and suddenly you realize a qualitative change.
"She's not that bad! And it's not empty at all. Why did you get all this? – I first saw Boyarskaya completely different.
Literally, with every scene, with every minute, Shakhnazarov opened and opened for me - as if laying out from a secret chest, about which no one had yet known, all the new innumerable jewels - completely unexpected, stunning, still hidden from everyone, the reserves of many-faced and, it turns out, the deepest Lisa Boyarskaya.
Only after the final series did everything come to me. And I'm AHNULA!
Not only with delight - as in a new way, but at the same time, surpassing all other versions in depth, as naturally and as modernly embodied Boyar Anna, but also because she was struck by the blindness and deafness of the whole country, including myself - who hung on a woman of this scale - the lightest and fastest label "empty beauty". No one bothered to think twice. There are templates prepared for us long ago. If she's beautiful, she's empty. And we – even the thinking and caring people to whom I consider myself – sculpt them without hesitation, thereby killing ... the living and the present.
I was stunned: how can we unforgivably err in our collective perceptions? With what thoughtless ease we allow stereotypes to dominate us!
How many years did everyone think that jewelry? And he, Shakhnazarov, saw (!) and showed us, and even as he showed (!) - it turns out that a diamond of a huge carat and a completely unusual cut.
Previously, carpenters worked with this nugget, with an axe in their hands, and Shakhnazarov, like a brilliant jeweler, found us the finest faces.
Contrary to popular belief, a perfect outwardly beautiful woman can, at the same time, be rich, complex and multifaceted inside. No, guys, Boyarskaya-Anna is not a “beautiful doll, memorizing and reading the text with an expression”, as you vying to write!
Not everyone is given the power of external beauty to consider – and what else is quietly hidden inside. After Anna Karenina, only a blind person can not see the inner power of Boyarskaya. Or those with powerful defense mechanisms. Envy. Jealousy. Anger. Why do some people have everything and others have nothing?
About the scene with galloping horses and slow shooting – already said Vladimir Solovyov and will not repeat. Hard. What is there to say?!
About the way Boyarskaya-Anna behaves in the carriage, in the last minutes of Anna’s life – I will say this: amazingly, naturally, unexpectedly in its own way, truthfully, presently, lived through and passed through itself capitally. Os-tol-bene!
Our piggy bank is replenished with new, fresh, modern Pride.
It is an event in the world cultural life of the 21st century. The Newborn Pearl of Our Country.
Anyone who doesn’t appreciate it should be ashamed.
A magnificent production by director Shakhnazarov. The plot line on Tolstoy is perfectly worked out, almost everything coincides with the work of the genius Lev Nikolaevich. By the way, finally, the appearance and overall Boyar image of the main character more or less fits the description of the classic.
But on the subject of the Russian-Japanese war there are several ' but' For example, it is not only I believe that for the role of 50-year-old Vronsky it would be better to find an actor older than the inept young makeup. Yes, there makeup - the very manners and liveliness of movements were too conspicuous, betraying, to put it mildly, Matveev's insufficient work on the image. It is strange that Shakhnazarov did not notice this. . .
And what are these pacifist speeches behind the scenes worth? Why is it so intrusive? It's not Solovyov's program. Here the viewer must believe, they will penetrate themselves, so no, the director decided to read the lecture to the people.
In general, about the line Veresayev - I do not believe. The war failed.
And for working on the work of one of the favorite classics - over 'Crime and Punishment' L.N. Tolstoy - I will not regret.
9 out of 10
This spring, Karen Georgievich Shakhnazarov, one of the best Russian directors, released his reading of the classic novel of our literature. His ' Anna Karenina' was released in two versions; the series and the film. Now the question is, why couldn't we release one of the two, why would we release two versions? But let us not reproach the master. In this review I will not compare 'Karenina'Shakhnazarova, with 'Karenina'Solovyov and especially with Karenina Zarhi.
It is worth noting that Shakhnazarov did not shoot an accurate film adaptation, but a new reading. Adding a storyline based on Veresayev’s biographical novel “On the Japanese War” & #39, Karen Georgievich showed that he wanted to read Tolstoy’s immortal novel in his own way. On the one hand, this concept has the right to exist. On the other hand, this line seems completely superfluous, as it is recalled 'Sunstroke' Mikhalkova (which, despite some shortcomings, I liked). It is unclear what I wanted to film Nikita Sergeevich, whether 'Sunstroke' or 'Cursed days' Bunin, but in the end the picture came out to some extent confused.
The screen adaptation of Shakhnazarov turned out to be just a beautiful picture, with a large budget, where the novel was explained rather superficially. For example, there are no such characters as Levine and Kitty. These are not the main characters from the point of view of the plot, but they largely allow you to understand the idea of the novel. Levin’s character looks good in contrast to the other characters of the novel. Removing Levin from the narrative is like removing Ilya Rostov or Pierre Bezukhov from War and Peace 39. I note from the pluses that the attitude of the upper world to Anna is shown accurately and conveys all the hypocrisy and hypocrisy of the upper world. Karenina's conversation with Dolly is almost word for word. This scene allows you to understand the essence of marriage. In fact, Tolstoy explored such a concept as marriage. And he depicted all the relations in the society (read: noble), which he observed.
As for the actors. The acting caused mixed feelings. On the one hand, Lisa Boyarskaya is a complete failure. Coquetry, the same facial expression in many scenes, constant overplay. Her attempts to play dramatic, nothing but Stanislavsky ' I do not believe!', do not cause.
As for her husband Maksim Matveev, he played a little better, but in many scenes, his performance was also quite expressionless. One gets the impression that Matveev and Boyarskaya were taken only because they are husband and wife.
Karenin performed by Vitaly Kishchenko, perhaps the strongest image in this tape. I think Karenin is here, just as Tolstoy was. Cold, sometimes harsh, restrained on emotions, this is how it is described by Tolstoy (according to some information, the prototype of Karenin was Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev). Karenin seems like some kind of evil person, but in fact, his harshness towards Anna is caused by the fact that with her betrayal all his heartfelt feelings have collapsed. The other actors played quite normally. I would single out Dolly played by Victoria Isakova.
I must say that the outstanding advantage of the series, despite many disadvantages, was the high quality of the film. Because despite the TV format, this is a real quality made movie.
But alas, as in 'Viking', the quality of the picture overshadowed the essence. This is a problem for our cinema.
P.S.: Since the days 'Disappeared Empire', Shakhnazarov's latest films have not been very successful. 'Chamber No6' came out extremely dull, 'White Tiger' turned out to be a cross between a military drama with elements of mysticism, which turned out to be banal
P.P.S: Generally, the latest film adaptations 'Karenina' were unsuccessful. Solovyov's film, failed due to directing and connection, with the second 'Assa'.
Why would she do that? Every student in our country asked this question, either by himself or at the suggestion of a teacher, in the tenth or eleventh grade.
The attempt to tell Tolstoy’s famous story on the other hand failed. There is no history of Vronsky in this work, just as it failed to make it in the film. The thing is that ' Anna Karenina' is a story about Anna, not Vronsky, Karenin or anyone else. But maybe that's not what the director wanted. Perhaps 'Vronsky's History', the postscript that was needed to interest the viewer, in a good way to deceive, spoiled by the prime ministers of the layman. In general, a marketing move in the fight for attention. And I have to admit, it's a good move.
Successful, like the film itself, and he was successful, succeeded more than all the last attempts to film the adaptation of this novel, no matter how good they were.
It is foolish to tell everyone a well-known story, there can be no spoilers here. It remains to enjoy the era when the concepts of honor, faith, love, conscience were much more valuable than they are now. The age of brave men and beautiful ladies.
At the end of the day, you will be asked: ' Why are you doing this?' And so it may be that I was wrong, and yet this is a little bit of Vronsky's story... it's up to you.
Everything was mixed in the soul of Anna Arkadyevna Karenina, intertwined in patterns resembling a strange lace, with the only difference that the thread was steel wire holding Karenina in the position that was desired by the unseen treacherous hunter who cast a net on her and with the triumph of the winner waiting for the end. Unexpected first love, clawed - quotes tormenting the soul, frightening uncertainty and unpredictability of consequences. A conscience sounding the alarm with a silver hammer, condemning the betrayal of loved ones. The privileges and habits of the socialite, from which I had to wean. In short, a false step was taken and the question of how to continue to put up with it occupied the anxious consciousness of the unfortunate woman, not allowing her to focus on everyday affairs requiring attention and reason. The desire for more than possible brought her to an extremely unstable position – a person who desperately wants to be happy against the rules, behaved boldly, defiantly, despising compromises, as if she was not a secular lady, idle, wasteful of her time, and a resolute politician reformer who thought to overturn the usual foundations, to push aside the dilapidated public morality. She didn't have a life-saving opportunity to step back and curtsey secular etiquette. Toxic consciousness of Anna Arkadyevna that somewhere in the depths of the soul in one of the hidden rooms lurked selfishness condoning the fall, which could not be justified by high feelings. Passion confused her mind, swirled her in a phantasmagoric dance, and promising and deceiving, brought Karenina to the final figure of this terrible pasodoble. Sin demanded sacrifice. It was he who frightened Karenina by not observing the rules, and secular education and female intuition whispered to deny her the right choice.
The shadow on the Karenin couple fell long before the events painted. That morning, when baby Anya was born, the sky was clouded. The cold March wind with its assertive damp breath drove cold people down the pavements. Laughing, he burst from the streets uninvited, without regard to private law, on the territory framing cozy mansions, dispersing at his discretion, stacked in heaps of last year's leaves. At noon, the ferocity of the wind subsided, a strange peace came, the sky darkened even more, so that candles had to be lit in the rooms.
Marriage with the imposing conservative Alexei Alexandrovich gave a slightly different artificial reception to Anna’s character. And this is true: it is difficult to resist, meeting now and then the powerful of this world, protruding themselves, blowing their cheeks, and not to get involved in the same game - not to get infected with vanity. Grandfather, and especially father Alexei Alexandrovich Karenin bit by bit collected merits and awards, overgrown with privileges, strengthening their position in society. Having guessed luck, and multiplying it by hard work, daily useful work for the benefit of the fatherland, they instilled in their offspring the same skills. And Alexei Alexandrovich with enthusiasm, encouraged by family traditions, fervently set to work. Serving the fatherland and the tsar took all his attention and strength, and the rest, ordinary, did not seem at all significant. So, fascinated by lawmaking: codes, vaults, paragraphs, he overlooked the liberal manner of Anna Arkadyevna, which manifested itself in her so unexpectedly and clearly.
I never understood why it took such terrible violence to complete a novel. Not in the light of pleasure-stricken women, calculating cocots who can cover their tracks. Or this is not an example – Anna Sergeevna from the “Lady with a Dog” A. P. Chekhova – a shy person, afraid of her shadow, hiding love “under the pillow” hoping as characteristic of a Russian person “that everything will form itself”, while understanding the hopelessness of the situation. But no! Tolstoy needs a sacrifice, and he mustered his shoulder to push Anna Karenina onto the tracks. Not for this did the great Russian writer deserve such an extreme denouement to draw more attention to the problems of the properties of the human soul. Indeed, this fateful act firmly linked the finale with the name of Anna Karenina - a way that causes hard reflection. Karenina overshadowed the rest of the characters of the novel, moving to the horizon, which at this distance seem even more fictional. And when I was once asked: “What is the name of Anna Karenina’s husband?”, thinking about it, I guessed a minute later – this is a prank.
As for directing, Karen Georgievich is an inimitable, brilliant director, this is without irony and quotation marks. He is an uncompromising fighter with precocious fashion tastelessness, with certified hacksters, heirs of cooperative infertility of the 90s. The burdens of Russian cinema, bypass it. Organizational abilities of the administrator, apparently, help to make a wonderful movie.
The absence of the image of Levin in the film – his attempts to understand the meaning of life, and reflections similar to the views of Tolstoy himself, are replaced by the events of the Russo-Japanese War and this is justified by the fact that otherwise there would be too many “crossroads”, and the film would lose navigation. I remember an episode in the theater, not in the contempt that Karenina experienced during the performance, but the singing of a woman from the stage with the appearance of a psychic and the voice of a siren, who made the hall freeze in admiration, and then in a single impulse, united in a huge single organism to applaud magical music. And, Anna, for a second forgetting her own experiences, suddenly realized against whom she moved - this revived monster, strong in body, this demon, jealously watching the strict observance of everyday norms. Each of these people, individually, was an insignificant, faceless history, but having sworn to the law, they all turned into an association of like-minded people ready for reprisal, for violence.
The old man looked and immediately changed. There was something strange about his appearance. As if he was standing not in the middle of a meadow flooded with midday sun, but in a smoked chamber illuminated by a burning candle, all dark, chaste, flat, as if taken from a yellowed picture and glued out of place. Karenina recognized the alien to her horror. And at the very beginning of the incident, she thought, slipping from her horse to fall to her knees before a stranger, begging the old man to let her go, to give her freedom, to retreat or postpone for a while the inevitable, but the constrained horror did not allow the plan to come true, and despair seized such that she had already been sentenced, and without delving into the essence of the matter, did not allow the last word in their defense.
I recognized him, too. Lev Nikolayevich stood in half a turn, straightened up like in front of a camera in a photo studio, turning his head towards the retreating apostates who took refuge in the county estate, to dissolve fear and unnecessary excitement in this commune, where they are still respected. In the bright sun, his beard, beautifully pouring on his chest with a waterfall, glowed with silver. Its ends were moved by a carefree mischievous light wind. There was no sympathy and mercy in his eyes, so characteristic of this believer, but only a pause of doubt, followed by an inexorable decision that surprised the judge himself with its cruelty. He predicted, without uttering words, a terrible death - for a sane person inexplicable, and for a desperate tired of fighting the applicant, a salvation, and in that, even more rude, incomprehensible.
The new film adaptation of literary classics, and especially such a “canonical” text as Anna Karenina, is usually perceived by viewers if not with prejudice, then at least wary. I began to watch the 2017 Anna Karenina series by accident and with the third series, critically comparing in advance with previous versions, and not assuming that I would watch until the end. As a result, from the third to the eighth series, I watched inseparably, for three evenings, and the first two at night on the Internet. Not only did I like the film, but it coincided in many ways with my perception of the novel’s main line. Partly for this reason, but largely because of the abundance of negative and unfair reviews, for the first time decided to publicly express gratitude to the authors of the film - and the director K. Shakhnazarov and the main actors - E. Boyarskaya and M. Matveev.
Thanks to an unexpected, completely “non-canonical” view (but not contradicting the ingenious source) and the added original plot (events 30 years after the end of the action in the novel), the authors told not only the story of Anna Karenina and her relationship with Vronsky and Karenin, but also the story of Vronsky (the story of Vronsky is the subtitle of the film). His “truth about love,” as he formulates Anna’s son, who has grown up to about 40 years old, in a scripted conversation-memories. For the first time, Vronsky’s love and history are equivalent to Anna’s love and story. His misfortune and unredeemed guilt (from his point of view) is that he failed to prevent a tragedy created not so much by circumstances as by Anna's all-consuming, demanding love/passion and character.
Anna performed by Boyarskaya is expectedly very beautiful, but at the beginning of the film (as well as at the beginning of the novel) she is still very charming, reasonable and confidently calm. Her life is well and secure (she is the wife of a virtuous, intelligent man and a happy mother), she exists in full and mutual harmony with the society around her. She manages to resolve the conflict in her brother’s family and convinces Dolly to forgive and accept Steve back. Everything changes after meeting Vronsky. Love/passion (and to a lesser extent circumstances that were not so overwhelming) makes her a different woman – hysterical, selfish, and completely immune to the voice of reason (and the mind of the beloved Vronsky and unloved Karenin). Boyarskaya organically plays this change, and, despite the death finale expected by the audience, her heroine in a state of constant tearing, groundless jealousy and search for those guilty in the person of the only loved one, ceases to cause sympathy. Looking at her, it is clear why Vronsky, who sincerely loves her, is a kind and decent person, still does not stand the test, and why there is only one way out for Anna - suicidal and tragic.
The Vronsky line has been extended for 30 years. Not even before the Balkan War, where he goes in the last part of the novel, but to the distant Russian-Japanese - already in the new XX century. Despite the obvious artificial assumptions – not the death of the death seeker Vronsky in the Balkans, the death of his daughter and a fantastic meeting with Anna’s son – this plot can be believed, primarily because it is very interesting for revealing the “truth”. Vronsky. Older Vronsky in the performance of “aged” Matveyeva turned out to be more charming than the handsome young guard officer at the beginning of the film. This gives “his truth” more credibility. All 30 years after Anna's death, he continued to live their love - the main thing that happened in his life ("she does not let me go," he tells Sergey Karenin). Vronsky belatedly ends his life, almost as suicidal as Anna. He sends from the village surrounded by the Japanese prepared for him (the wounded colonel of the General staff) stroller with the beloved Chinese girl and goes to die in a hopeless battle (“I will not be captured,” he reassures Sergey Karenin). In his last moments, he remembers the station, illuminated by the rays of the winter morning sun, the place of their first meeting with Anna, who forever united them, and divided their lives into “before” and “after”.
Vronsky's story meets, if not justification, then at least understanding, on the part of the only and main listener - Anna's son. Sergey Karenin’s attitude to Vronsky changes in the course of the story. At the beginning, he does not hide his dislike (he openly says that he even planned to kill Vronsky, considering him the culprit of the death of his mother and the collapse of the family), and at the end he tries to persuade him to leave the encirclement and avoid death. Vronsky told everything that had accumulated in his soul, and was free for the finale of his story.
A few words to critics of the film, convinced that “Boyarskaya is worse than Samoilova”, “Matveev can not be compared with Lanov”, etc. I am not young enough to remember some of the reviews of the older generation of our family about the film S. Zarha in 1967 – “Samoilova is far from Tarasova”, “Lanova is not Massalsky”, “the beauty of Samoilova is not aristocratic”, etc. All of this is reminiscent of the talk that goes back to the Egyptian pyramids, that the youth are much worse than they were in our time. The truth is not that Boyarskaya and Matveev are worse or better than previous performers - they are different and the film is different. What is important is not the specific names of the actors, but the fact that the film generates empathy and interest in the story told and its heroes. It is thanks to this that the viewer, watching the movie, thinks about the most important thing - about life, love and death.
From the viewer, not film criticism
8 out of 10
I completely agree with those who did not like the series, I will not repeat it. I just want to say that for some reason no one noticed: and Love where? neither Love, nor passion, nor even love at point-blank range is visible. Therefore, you do not believe anything, and the acting is completely false.
Zverolov in his review writes: ' Shakhnazarov K.G., perfectly conveyed all the vulgarity of the heroine's egoism, all its ugly essence. To love without self-sacrifice, without “for one’s friends,” without “the last shirt and caftan,” without breaking oneself and one’s feelings about the knee is not to love at all, for Tolstoy; it is to hate. Therefore, it is Karenina performed by Boyarskaya, judging again by the reviews, that is antipathic to many, even disgusting. And that's right! This is exactly what Tolstoy wants from you - to see in her, Karenina, an abomination, an animal, a hideous creature crawling with sin; the incarnation of hell, whirled by a demonic chariot on an infernal chariot!' - this is a very interesting remark, indeed, maybe Shakhnazarov wanted to take revenge on all his former wives and show how disgusting they are? If that was his goal, the movie was a success!
By the way, I always thought that Samoilova played Karenina badly, and now I watched the film Zarkhi, and I realized: Samoilova is great!!! And against her background, Boyarskaya's game looks very wretched! And it's nothing personal, I really love Lisa Boyarskaya. Maybe in 50 years, I'll like her Karenina.
I am a strange supporter of new readings of the classics, but with one condition: the title should immediately give the viewer to understand that this is not a film adaptation, but ' reflections on the topic ' This is the case with ', Anna Karenina. The story of Vronsky' I accept, but the series is called ' Anna Karenina'. Why? Did L. N. Tolstoy not fully express his thoughts? Has the author found what to say about the author? All ' new' in this film - from the evil... Artists are too modern, sometimes deliberately, a strange selection of scenes, the slowness of the narrative ... About everything in order:
The main disappointment of the film is the acting. How the casting took place and why half did not get rid of the role during filming - it is not clear. More or less I believe Grebenshchikov (Sergei) and Lutaeva (Vronskaya). Probably because the first did not have a complex Tolstoy character, and the second affects the Soviet school of play. Isakova, Makeeva, Gorbatov are equally careless. Behind them there is no background, very one-sided ... Kishchenko managed to create his personal image of Karenin, but I did not see the dynamics, halftones, all very greasy brushstrokes. Matveev is quite convincing Vronsky, but only externally. If you take the Tolstoy part of the series, Vronsky has no dynamics, one facial expression, an eye the whole film. Here in the Versailles part he is already different. More lively, interesting... In general, the Japanese part turned out better, better, more confident, sincere. Maybe because there are fewer main characters, and extras were given 100%. Although yes, the abundance of the Chinese girl in ' Anna Karenina' at least not clear. As for the main character, I want to ask: who even told Boyarskaya that she was an actress? Cinderella's evil sister is her ceiling. I have not yet seen (although, I confess, I do not follow her filmography) any picture where she in the lead role would convince me. She is everywhere ' plays ' but nowhere ' lives '. The main mystery of this film for me is the choice of the actress for the main role. But the main actor’s disappointment for me personally still became Kolesnikov (Oblonsky). Where is the bright, radiant master, always en bonne humeur? Where did this stilted gloomy bore from the 1st year of the theater university come from?
As for the script: it is amazing how an 8-episode film can be crammed with almost less events than is revealed, for example, in Shchedrin’s 1.5-hour ballet based on the same novel (where everyone also dances a lot, not talks quickly). In ballet, for example, there are both Levine and Kitty. In general, the rejection of this line, of course, allowed you to focus on the main & #39; plot, but at the same time killed the contrast, texture and volume of Anna's tragedy. The new contrast created by the paintings in Manchuria is sometimes unclear and incomprehensible. The very idea of meeting Karenin and Vronsky many years later is beautiful. But implemented somehow. And by the way, there are a lot of dialogues that have nothing to do with either Tolstoy or Veresaev... the writers think they are more brilliant than the recognized authors? Then why do they take such a work and not write their own? . .
Well, the overall lethargy of the narrative is straining. It took Wright 15 minutes to cram the contents of the first two parts of the novel and fully illustrate the plot (without abandoning other storylines, by the way) - controversial but beautiful. Here, approximately the same events are stretched into 2.5 episodes - yes, taking into account Japanese scenes, but with the castration of Tolstoy's novel. 100 minutes! It would seem that the same events can be shown more fully, in detail, to point out some details that were missed in previous film adaptations. Many general plans, dances, landscapes, beautiful shots. Perhaps they tried to undermine the modern speed of dialogue, but it only gets worse. . .
As a result: with all due respect to Shakhnazarov, I did not understand the main thing: why was this film made? what did he say new? something interesting revealed in Tolstoy? just a beautiful picture? No, no, not again. The best Anna was purely outwardly Drubich (I start from Tolstoy’s description), although I did not like her performance. Acting unsurpassed so far Samoilova and Lee. A beautiful picture was in the adaptation of Rose, an interesting approach to transferring to the screen was suggested by Wright, Solovyov suggested his reading of events, Goulding changed the ending ... And here, alas, another passing picture. It is a pity, Karen Georgievich, that has often become disappointing. . .
I could not believe that Karen Shakhnazarov could shoot something unworthy. You're right! First of all. Bravo for courage! It is much easier for the tenth time to reshoot the classics of both literature and cinema, without bringing something of its own. And I'm sure the filmmakers were prepared for the not-so-positive feedback of our conservative society.
I just want to say that I am not a young generation. I'm 1968. I feel like I'm 30.
Second. Modern Anna in the interpretation of Shakhnazarov, Boyarskaya, etc. I am much closer, more interesting and understandable. Tell me, what did Tolstoy Anna want to interest during her husband’s life together? What was she doing? What was she doing? Besides dress fitting? While modern Anna tried to live in her husband’s interests, she served him (as she put it). She tried to be interesting to him, not just home slippers. Therefore, the motives for her subsequent action are clearly understood here. I don't understand what Anna was offended by. What was she trying to give her husband besides her claims? What was she waiting for? What interest did she expect? This is because I love Zarqi’s movie. I bow to the talent of Samoilova, Lanovoi and everyone else. But to me Tolstoy Anna is not at all close and understandable. I haven't seen the movie yet. Watching Episode 7. But I could not resist, because already at the moment I have my own opinion, different from many. And in order not to have so many claims to the film adaptation of the classics, I think a small mistake was made.
All I had to do was write '. . . ' And there would be fewer questions.
The book is read, the series is viewed... and the sediment remains. The book by Lev Nikolayevich is not in itself simple, multi-story and no director was able to fully film ' Anna Karenin' therefore, initially had no illusions about the series, but the cast, modern opportunities - inspire hope for the best.
Let’s start with a good one:
1. Decorations and costumes - exactly conveyed the fashion of that time, the feeling that you are transferred to those times.
2. Concentrate on one storyline. The series did not spray on many storylines, as in the book, and settled on the main thing. It was an unexpected but not a bad decision. The story affected all the characters, but most of all it affected the fate of the main characters.
3. An unplanned (or rather invented by the director) meeting of Vronsky and Anna’s son. These two characters symbolize two points of view - how the situation turned out for our beloved, what they experienced and how it looked from the outside.
This is where the pros end, and now the cons of the series:
1. Actors play. In the series, you can forgive a lot - the scenery, the clumsiness of the plot, changing it, bringing out heroes, but not the game! I respect the Boyarskaya, I can not say that Boyarskaya is Anna. Tolstoy had a very clearly spelled out image, Anna fascinated with her beauty, upbringing, education, facial features of an aristocrat, which Boyarskaya does not have. In the scene: the ball where Vronsky dances with Anna - through their look at each other (lovely look) all present realized about their alleged connection. And what was in the series: a cold, indifferent, partially frightened look Boyarskaya.
The Russian work, she assumed, could be conveyed only by Russians, because there is a special Russian soul, a special restraint of those times, where the true opinion, intentions are spoken not by words, but by gestures, views. The only one who managed to play like this is Anna's husband, Karenin. The rest of the game was a regular soap series.
Separate indignation regarding Boyarskaya: the main character was redrawn from a woman who knew love, but at the same time worried about her choice, adequately endured hardships, who did not deserve contempt because she loves, truly loves, turned into: cold (even to Vronsky), nervous, hysterical, arrogant, vicious woman (pardon me for rudeness). On one of the forums there was a comment: 'When Karenina threw herself under the train - I thought: at last, this hysteria threw itself under the train' (c) - I cannot disagree with the author.
Vronsky also did not differ (more precisely in the performance of Matveev) by special emotionality - especially during the birth of Anna.
You can not ignore the game of Kolesnikov (Steve), because some came out he is not a family, albeit a traitor, but a hanger, a cunning ... The unfaithfulness of the husband (according to the book) did not diminish his dignity as a person.
2. Karenin. If in the book you do not feel special pity for Karenin, because this man is far from emotions, then in the series he was extolled as a martyr who saved and forgave his vicious wife in every possible way, what he did was worthy of respect. That’s just Lev Nikolaevich differently described the reasons for Karenin’s actions ... perhaps the director had his own vision. ..
3. The plot is crumpled and this is not a problem, but prolonged insertions of scenery - I believe, an unreasonable measure - a waste of time, while they do not convey the emotions of the characters.
I guess that's it. You can forgive a lot in the film adaptation of books, but the lack of emotions, bad play, the desire to end the series - you can not forgive.
It is forbidden to watch if you like the book.
The new film adaptation ' Anna Karenina' will remain the only one for a long time, since Karen Shakhnazarov offers us a completely different directorial development.
The reality of the Versayev Japanese war with adult heroes is filled with ' juices of memories' Alexei Vronsky.
There are a number of interesting images in the picture.
And the Chinese girl (Sophia Song) is both an indigenous inhabitant of this land and a symbolic image. Perhaps it is an expression of what happened to Vronsky frankness.
One of the final scenes - with the Black Man & #39; (coachman), with black horses and a carriage, with Anna's feverish monologue - is also very symbolic. There is a bit of a shock here.
Lisa Boyarskaya - 'technological','systemic' actress (as I think). And many of the scenes she conducts very well, perhaps in accordance with some sketched for himself ' graphic role'.
But there is no ' anguish of creativity' doubts, some internal discord.
It is true that in such material for an actress there is always a danger of approaching the “risk zone” & #39; and she should definitely “build a defense” & #39;.
But it is also true that Lisa may not come close to revelations in art.
This is a paradoxical situation (here we are talking more about iconic roles).
Vitaly Kishchenko very faithfully creates Karenin, with his logical course of life.
In the eyes of Kirill Grebenshchikov (Sergei Karenin) - a whole life.
Victoria Isakova is a wonderful thoughtful actress, but it seemed to me that Dolly (as I feel the heroine) is not her role.
Maksim Matveev is convinced in the role of Vronsky, who in his youth tries to deal with his love in the conditions of the “social cell” & #39; and only closer to the Japanese war (probably) he discovers the true meaning of the word ' love'.
In the Versailles Japanese War, Anna’s two most beloved people – Seryozh and Vronsky – unite (communication takes place). Her wish, albeit in other circumstances, is being fulfilled.
And this is the new version.
I have great respect for Shakhnazarov as a director, his previous works are incomparable. Here there was a feeling that he was trying in vain from a superficial and absolutely unbreakable couple of actors to pull something less like acting. The reason, most likely, lies in the following - Boyarskaya and Matveev - people far from the era that is shown in the film. Especially Boyar. He does not know how to move, talk, does not know where to put his hands, does not understand how to behave. If this reading of Anna Karenina had been postponed now, then yes, it might have been a good thing. But what was shown now, alas, is simply marriage (both in the work and in the lives of actors, for I saw Boyarskaya and Matveev in front of me, not Karenina and Vronsky).
The most striking thing is that in one of the interviews about this series, Shakhnazarov said that he chose Boyarskaya for the fact that she was the most suitable in age to play Anna. That's it! What does it take to play Tolstoy?! There is an impression of some kind of imposition ...
The work of Boyarskaya in the Admiral in the role of Timireva comes to mind and the question is – what is the difference? Neither there nor in Karenina was created a corresponding image. It's all the same. One to one. Awkward movements, ignoble bass, empty eyes... All this is pulled exclusively by the work of makeup artists, hairdressers and costumers.
Terrible disappointment. The film with Samoilova and Lanov remains unattainable height. There and in secondary roles were engaged actors (Yakovlev, Savina, a beautiful ballerina Plisetskaya), whose play is unforgettable. And here grayness, grayness and again grayness - uninteresting, empty, repulsive ... Thank you can only say decorators, costumers, make-up artists, in general, the technical staff who created the right atmosphere, completely killed by the "acting" game.
2 out of 10
Having read Anna Karenina at the age of 16, due to the lack of experience of strong love, and especially maternal experience, the novel did not strike me and I remember only the torment of the unfortunate woman between my son and Vronsky and Levin with his love for Kitty. After re-reading the novel at 30, I saw the events taking place in it in a very different light and I had my own idea of the characters, not what I learned from the school curriculum. Thus Anna no longer appears to me as a victim of circumstances and morals of the time, but as a hostage of her own selfishness, and evokes only a sense of disgust and pity, not compassion. She abandons her husband, son, and then Vronsky with her daughter, who, by the way, could not love.
Seeing the film adaptation of the novel in the vision of Karen Shakhnazarov, I realized from the first series that everything I saw on the screen completely coincides with my impression of the novel, read in 30 years. All the characters, except perhaps Oblonsky (more sophisticated and solid), are played by the actors as I see them in the pages of the novel. I would really like to see Levin, but if we consider this film adaptation as a story by Vronsky, then he definitely has no place here. So, if you do not find fault with the lack of a line Levine and Kitty, this film adaptation is very worthy and even more so than the one with Keira Knightley.
A lot of criticism was caused by the appearance of Sergey Karenin in the image of a military doctor, which is the speculation of the director, but personally I was interested in discussing how the lives of Anna’s children, whom she so ruthlessly abandoned, would develop. And the Chinese girl did not bother me at all.
If I had decided to watch this film based on the memories of a novel I read when I was 16, then my assessment would probably have been lower, but after reading the novel and rethinking it already in adulthood, I confidently put it.
9 out of 10
It just so happens that I am reading Anna Karenina for the first time. Seeing the commercial on the TV series, I realized that naturally I want to watch it, compare and visualize my idea of the heroes of the novel with Shakhnazarov’s performance.
I will say at once that unlike many, I liked Boyarskaya in the role of Anna, and Matveev in the role of Vronsky. Moreover, I understood why Anna was able to love this man, because in the novel I could not explain it to myself: after all, neither the special beauty, the article, and what to hide and nobility Vronsky did not differ. Boyarskaya, despite not much similarity with the description of Tolstoy's heroine, was able to convince me of the role of Karenina. Although she showed us a self-confident, completely different Anna from the novel. After all, in fact, she was an ordinary woman from the upper world - not particularly happy in marriage, comforted in secular life.
This is where my positive feelings about the series end.
From the very beginning, I begin to be haunted by a feeling of some understatement, as if a schoolboy retells a novel in a literature lesson: some moments he learned well and even quotes them, and then a free retelling of a contemporary goes on. Where people live not in the 19th, but in the 20th century, turn among themselves almost panibratically and call each other in ' you'
One picture replaces another, you understand that without reading a novel before that, you simply do not understand some things. Where did this mad love of Anna and Vronsky come from? Why don't they just talk about what he did to Kitty? It's a very telling thing to do. And there are many more things to write about here.
Also, for me, this connection with the war and the meeting of Vronsky with Seryozhya in general are completely unclear. Liberties on the topic of the future fate of Anna’s daughter and Karenin himself. Who gave the right to interfere with the novel of the great writer?
My mother, a teacher of Russian language and literature, was also going to watch this series. The next day, after the first 2 episodes, I asked her opinion. She told me she fell asleep in the middle of the second episode. I think the comments are superfluous.
“Vronsky, meanwhile, despite the full realization of what he had long desired, was not entirely happy. He soon felt that the fulfillment of his desire had delivered him only a grain of sand from the mountain of happiness he had expected. This realization showed him the eternal error that people make in imagining happiness as the fulfillment of desire. – Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina
Skeptical attitude to the new reading of the novel by Leo Tolstoy from the audience has reached such a boiling point that Karen Shakhnazarov is even forced to defend his actors-performers of the roles of Anna and Vronsky. I will also allow myself to defend Elizaveta Boyarskaya, Maxim Matveev, the respected director and the entire project. I do this as a big fan of a novel that has a certain demonic power over me, reread regularly, each time with new and new nuances, as a big fan of the screen version of Alexander Zarha in 1967, dozens of times watched - an almost inaccessible example of the film adaptation of the novel and in general Russian classics in relation to the general atmosphere, casting and everything else. Familiar with the tapes with Greta Garbo, Vivien Leigh, Jacqueline Bisse, Claire Bloom, Sophie Marceau, Kira Knightley, our theatrical version with Alla Tarasova and the puzzling (!) adaptation of Sergei Solovyov. In all this host, the film adaptation of Karen Shakhnazarov follows immediately after the film Zarkha in 1967, inferior to him if only in the letter of Tolstoy.
The new film adaptation disappointed those who apparently waited for stories about a woman on the verge of a nervous breakdown, as Karenina is usually interpreted. However, the new Anna is quite emancipated, self-confident woman, not only not a victim, but the mistress of her fate, moreover, the director of her life and a conscious manipulator of others, even her son Sergey. She looked at Vronsky for a long time before throwing herself with her head, however, cold enough, into this pool of passion. And the decisive step was taken by herself, when it seemed to her that Vronsky would quite fit into the play of her own composition - a young woman who, at the age of 18, married a statesman 20 years older than her, without love, decides to get a new sensual experience with a perfectly suitable alpha male, who obviously easily succumbs to her magical charm. In many ways, Vronsky and Anna are like twins, active, ironic, of good temper, both souls of any society. The play written by Anna, which was supposed to be a happy melodrama with interspersed vaudeville, turned into drama. And then it became clear that this project Vronsky is not as expensive and convenient as Anna, he reveals complete phlegmaticity, she is choleric temperament. “My love is becoming more passionate and selfish, and it is all dying out and dying out, and that is why we diverge, and it cannot be helped.” She continues to persevere, torments everyone and herself and, finally, in her hearts, leaves the game.
Someone is confused by Vronsky’s assumption, with whom we meet 30 years after the fateful events, that Anna is alive, that the body he identified at the station may not have belonged to her, but all those around him, tired of the troubled history, were satisfied with such a point, and no one looked for Anna. Such an emphasis, however, seems very logical and characterizes Vronsky from the best side - he could not match Anna, cope with her inner demons, but never wished Anna harm, after her death he returned to the regiment, apparently moving from one "hot spot" to another, subconsciously counting on death on the battlefields. As “expected” another hero of his time Pechorin: “I will die somewhere on the road!” Anna would not let him go and imagine that she was alive, clinging to the last hope - it is so human. All this is perfectly played by Lisa and Max, by the end of their duet there is something explosive and grotesque, and the director skillfully whipps up suspense and expectations of inevitable misfortune, until the last trip of the heroine in a black stroller like a hearse into the underworld and hellish flames around Vronsky in the Japanese offensive in Manchuria.
It is clear that Tolstoy at the end of the 19th century was more restrained in his assessments and interpretations to be accepted by the then society, but all the nuances emphasized by Karen Shakhnazarov, Lev Nikolaevich has, from mysticism and horror to satire and feminism. “If I wanted to say in words all that I meant to express in a novel, I should have written the same novel that I wrote first ... every thought expressed in particular words loses its meaning, terribly decreases when one of the clutch in which it is taken.” And Shakhnazarov’s new production is exceptionally classical, in the best traditions of our unique cinema and Russian mentality, lovingly and in a positive sense pedanticly thought out. Obviously, the project succeeded.
I will not say that all the details of the production are perceived favorably, something is puzzling, some “ingredients” are catastrophically lacking. But if you remember that each new generation needs its own reading of the classics, then the modern generation is very lucky. I look forward to the screen version in June.
A heavy impression of this series - I do not want to call a film. I think Tolstoy would be horrified by such a reading. Some kind of surrogate of a living, painful for the author, full of reflections on the life and love of the novel. There was something dry, clumsy and rough. Why did Veresayev get there, why endless moans and an abundance of blood, are these the only characteristics of the war? Yes, it is now so customary to portray war that the viewer is horrified, but this does not add strength and credibility to the image. What does this have to do with war? To justify another adaptation of a famous novel? Moreover, the basis was completely schematic, lost the Tolstoy spirit. In this form shoot Russian classics foreigners, unable to understand anything in the Russian character! Heroes are schematic, Anna is generally some kind of evil fury without a mind and heart. Boyar is in no way suitable for this role.
And why repeat after the masterpiece with Samoilova and Lanov? For the sake of taking a ball with real candles? It doesn't matter in the movies! St. Petersburg cardboard! This is terrible.
I think that in our time, no good director can make a film that would compare with the classics of the Soviet period. Time, therefore, is not the same, gentlemen! You can't do it! Maybe you lack censorship? You scolded her so much, and maybe it is necessary if you lack self-criticism, self-control?
At the end of the film, Vronsky throws out lines that suggest a terrible thought - perhaps a continuation of this fantasy should follow? God forbid.
There is already a universally recognized masterpiece "Anna Karenina" Zarha.
Reference:
Masterpiece (French chef-d'oeuvre - "higher work", "crown of labor") - a unique, unsurpassed creation, the highest achievement of art, skill or anything else.
From time to time, as a rule, foreign directors still try to film our classics, as the desire of the master to touch something great. I’m sure they know in advance – their film is passing, because there is already a world-famous masterpiece of Zarhi.
Our Shakhnazarov is a good director with beautiful, my favorite, films of a certain directed genre. And suddenly a classic??
Yes, he said that he would remove a sequel - an attempt by Seryozha Karenin to understand the act of his mother in conversations with Vronsky, whom he met during the Russian-Japanese war.
But this is a complete film adaptation, supplemented by the Russian-Japanese war. Comparison cannot be avoided.
Yes, outwardly Boyarskaya and Matveev are suitable for the role of Anna and Vronsky. But, it turned out, only externally and only the main characters.
Instead of the heat of passion in intonation, gestures ... in the very atmosphere of the film — boring leisurely almost monotonous dialogue in the sluggish current narrative of the film. After all, Anna is woven of passions and everything around her falls into this whirlwind of passions.
They say, don’t compare, just watch and appreciate this movie.
I look, and when I hear Anna (Boyarskaya) Anna (Samoilova) sounds in my head and so the memory itself replaces the dialogues of all the others: Vronsky (Matveeva on Lanovoy), Karenin (Grytsenko), Steve (Yakovlev), Dolly (Savina), Princess Betsy (Plisetskaya, also, the chic acting of our ballerina).
Because our memory is already "poisoned" by some beautiful, once seen and heard, and refuses to accept some worst substitution. Therefore, not to compare - it does not work.
The movie is passable. I write with sadness and disappointment. I see positive feedback. I am sure of the younger generation who have not read Tolstoy, and, most importantly, are not going to read the novel even after watching the film. They evaluate not so much the film as the personalities of Liza Boyarskaya and Matveyev: what hairstyle, what they are wearing, whether it suits them ... and so on, as assessed by models on the catwalk. Sorry!
A 3-minus movie. I put 5. So that the worst foreign analogues do not break ahead.
I’m waiting for the film “History of Vronsky” by K. Shakhnazarov.
I watched the series and then read a few reviews. How good that I did not read them before viewing, otherwise, I would certainly not watch - the reviews are mostly negative. What an unwise viewer has gone to. .
The director is reproached for departing from the letter of the text, in the refracted, focused on the love line & #39; reading, etc. And this perfectly betrays themselves as shallow critics, as literalists and popcorn lovers.
But the production is even too simplistic. 'Anna Karenina', friends, this is not a love story, not Bunin adultery and certainly not modern 'soap', for sure. Count Alexei Tolstoy is a moralist writer who had and observed not only a code of conduct, but also developed his own religious and moral doctrine. Why, by the way, had disagreements with the Church, which betrayed the count to excommunication, in the end.
When you read or watch his works, this provision should not be overlooked. He is a charismatic, fanatic, our domestic Protestant, almost a sectarian, if you will: after all, there was a whole movement ' Tolstoytsev' - very strong and still his ideas, which have become commonplace, like ' Tolstoy', by no means obsolete society.
Did you want to talk about love, about broken hearts, about beautiful bed scenes and cooing under the sun of lovers & #39? Yeah, yeah. Perhaps this is how you read and perceive what you want, what is habitual or what hurts, as they say. But this, I repeat, is not Bunin or Chekhov, it is not Sholokhov. Tolstoy does not care at all about love and feelings, or rather, feelings for him - only an instrument for expressing an idea. And his ideas are moralistic, evangelical.
And in this sense, Shakhnazarov KG, perfectly conveyed all the vulgarity of the heroine’s egoism, all its ugly essence. To love without self-sacrifice, without ' for one's friends' without ' the last shirt and caftan' without breaking oneself and one's feelings about the knee is not to love at all, for Tolstoy; it is tantamount to hate. Therefore, it is Karenina performed by Boyarskaya, judging again by the reviews, that is antipathic to many, even disgusting. And that's right! This is exactly what Tolstoy wants you to see in her, Karenina, an abomination, an animal, an abominable creature crawling with sin; the incarnation of hell, which is rushed by a demonic chariot on an infernal chariot!
And did Natasha Rostova, when she became interested in Anatole Kuragin, so that she forgot about honor and conscience, about family and reputation, about relatives and about God? No, but she's just as nasty and disgusting, or at least pathetic and gone as Karenina. The whole image of a lively, charming, naively enthusiastic girl painted before this, all flies to rubbish when she betrays, runs... And only when she is cured of passion, takes herself in hand, becomes rational, human again, a caring mother and wife, then only charm and charm return to her.
So Boyarska's game is great. She's just on top. So to play scenes of jealousy, hysteria and other deviations - means to deeply understand the heroine of Tolstoy and the idea of the work. For her, Karenina, people are quite themselves. She manipulates them as she pleases, while ugly ' ego' does not grow so much that she loses all shores and completely goes out of control: betrayed her husband, son, then Vronsky and daughter, and sent herself under the train. Trying to own people, she did not notice how she lost power over herself, her emotions, desires, passions. . .
So Tolstoy is an old, good moralist. Don't forget that.
Beautiful Anna Karenina and Count Alexei Vronsky meet at the station. From this day forward, their lives are fused.
The eight-part film provides an opportunity in which - and someone for the first time - to think about the plot and actions of the heroes of Leo Tolstoy, to evaluate the play of actors dressed in luxurious outfits against the backdrop of picturesque scenery. Karen Shakhnazarov’s version is distinguished by the artistic method of narration from 1904, from the Russo-Japanese War. Why such a move is invented, it becomes clear in the sublime finale.
Elizabeth Boyarskaya vividly and convincingly plays the flame of passion, thirst, joy and bitterness of love, the cauldron of feelings of shame, rightness, pain from secular contempt and the torments of self-condemnation. Maxim Matveev managed to convey the tragic misunderstanding of a woman by a man in the process of mutual love - a misunderstanding preceding the unnecessary fatigue of relations, a desperate realization that it will not be possible to understand.
The aristocratic style of the film enhances grace and become numerous horses - race and harnessed in carriages and wagons.
The film reads:
Men, including even counts, are not given to understand the reasons for women’s words and actions. Man is incomprehensible, and woman is more incomprehensible than man.
The line of behavior of a man towards a woman should be this. Saying “I love”, a man from this moment is obliged to devote his life to the happiness of his beloved woman without any conditions and guarantees.
And if in the process you realize that you do not understand anything, squeeze your teeth and continue to love – with all your might.
10 out of 10