The problem is that they are dealing with a classic, one of Leo Tolstoy’s masterpieces, and you cannot shortchange the subject of a masterpiece, especially one with an opening line as famous as this: “All happy families resemble one another, each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”[break]
If you aren’t one of those who read books but first watch movies, then I beg you to set aside time to read Tolstoy’s anyway. It may not be an easy task – set aside a year, perhaps even two – but read it. The narrative may be slow in places, even tedious (Tolstoy would have been heavily edited if he had been trying to publish in this age) but in the patience of his pacing lies his skill.
Why read the book when you can watch the movie? Why read a book at all when there are thirteen movies made on the subject? Yes, the novel is rather thick. But it is more than that. None of the movies has been able to quite capture Tolstoy in its entirety, and moviemakers have always wanted to rise up to the challenge.
The advantage that the written word has, and the challenge that a screenplay writer faces, is that through writing, one enters into the head of a character and journeys through his thoughts. On screen, this is difficult to do. Tolstoy, like most Russian masters, did not just write a story, he wrote an experiment, explored the human mind, its response to situation, especially in society. The tiny changes are what make the book.
The 2012 movie disregards many of these changes for the faster-paced, flamboyant portrayal. Wright’s film discards the gravity with which Tolstoy handles his subject in favor of beautiful, theatricality.
There is nothing wrong with theatricality. There is nothing wrong with beauty. But both need some kind of substance to develop meaning. A film adaptation that is only a summary, no matter how beautifully it is done, remains only that – a summary. Beauty does not lie in breathtaking images but also in difficult, everyday truths.
Tolstoy’s novel is a classic not because of the frame of the story but because of everything else that makes up the frame. It is not just about Anna, but also about Levin, about the parallel relationship of both characters. It is not just about a woman who leaves her husband for her lover but also about her husband, her lover, and the people in the crumbling Imperial Russian society. It is about the anguish a person goes through when faced with difficult choices, about the hard life of the peasants, the challenges of a country person as opposed to that of a society person in Moscow or St. Petersburg.
The book starts with Anna Karenina trying to prevent her sister-in-law seeking a divorce, and ends with Anna herself trying to get one from her husband. She begins the story with a train journey as the wife of Alexey Alexandrovitch, but ends her life under a train, unable to become the wife of Alexei Vronsky.
But these are only bookends that mark the points from beginning to end. In between are small turns that take Anna away from who she was, who she thought she would be to who she becomes. The characters in the supporting role provoke her into making her choices, especially toward the end, when she meets Kitty. These seemingly small moments have been sacrificed on screen.
What is perhaps most beautiful about Tolstoy’s writing is that it is not just about beauty, but also about things that are ugly. It is not just about pretty things but also about some ugly, petty things. He does not gloss over. He stays, takes the time to pick things apart, and sometimes even explains the picking process. But in Wright’s film, everything appears glossed over, and beauty is consistently manipulated.
Wright’s movie is an audacious venture, especially since Tolstoy himself did not think much of theater. Also, Anna Karenina has already been made into films so many times that to do one again, one needs new ideas. However, to sacrifice the soul of the subject might not be the answer to the challenge. We have technology to make the world appear beautiful at our disposal but that will not beautify the world. One cannot depend on style for subject. The world is beautiful because of its flaws, just as subjects are most beautiful when flawed. Goodness doesn’t come from beauty alone. In Tolstoy’s own words: “It is amazing how complete is the delusion that beauty is goodness.”
Related story
Julia Garner, Anna Chlumsky, Laverne Cox board Shonda Rhimes' A...
