Ana Karenina

As I have stated before and often in my reviews, I don't care whether or not a film adaptation is faithful to its source material; my only requirement is that it be good and stand on its own two feet. Love (1927) mostly does this; I haven't read Anna Karenina, though I am familiar with the basic outline of the plot. Love hits the high points of the story, though it does make the relationship between Anna and Vronsky more a case of two soul mates finding one another than what those two characters are in the novel.

Garbo is luminescent as Anna. She was not only gorgeous, but she could communicate such depth and soul despite being featured in so many standard melodramas. Gilbert does good and is ardent as the romantic lead, but Garbo steals the show. As is usual with most 1920s MGM melodramas, the production is lavish and pretty. My biggest issue is that the story is incredibly rushed; everything moves so quickly and it feels like scenes were even lost or snipped. Nothing develops gradually. Aside from that problem, Love is a nice romantic drama, though if you want your Garbo-Gilbert fix, you're better off with Flesh and the Devil or A Woman of Affairs.

I've always been an ardent fan of Flesh and the Devil, but then I saw Love. This movie is absolutely beautiful, there's no other word to describe it. Whereas Flesh and the Devil seemed to be crass commercialism, Love is more subtle in many ways.

I gave this movie a 9 due to two rather melodramatic moments where Garbo wasn't exactly restraining herself. However, there are enough scenes where she conveys Anna's inner turmoil by the most fleeting and eloquent of expressions. The lighting in her scenes are breathtakingly beautiful, and I can only imagine how long it took to set it up just right! In so many of her scenes she is heartbreaking, especially when, exiled from her home, she sees a schoolboy and momentarily believes that he is her son and tries to embrace him. When he struggles and runs away, she does a wonderful job portraying Anna's rather unstable mind, which she does to great effect throughout the picture. In the beginning, however, when she first meets Vronsky, she seems to be in control of herself, and there is a wonderfully imperious stare in close-up, followed quickly by a close-up of Gilbert. As I watched her, I was astonished when I remembered that she was only 22 in this film.

Which brings us to Gilbert. For those who think of him as simply Valentino's successor as the Great Lover, being no more than a slab of meat for the delight of female audiences, need to watch this film. He is simply perfect, the model of natural acting -- there is not a hint of melodrama or the "ham" about him. He is completely in love with Anna, but there are none of the breast-heaving love scenes that are throughout Flesh and the Devil. He is jealous of anybody coming between him and Anna, but there are no widened eyes and arm waving. Simply jamming his hands in his pockets and an angry stare into the distance.

My only complaint with this film was the presentation on TCM. They used a live performance, and we get the "audience reaction" throughout the film. Which is fine at points, but for the most part, the reaction is totally wrong. Too many times there was laughter at what was, in 1927, a very dramatic moment. When Jack is too busy looking at Garbo to blow out the match and ends up burning his finger, that's funny. But when Anna says the profound line to the jealous Vronsky "There is no more or less in love -- I love you both infinitely" (referring to her son), the laughter was totally inappropriate. I hope this is not the avenue of any future TCM silent movies. Even though modern audiences are supposedly more "sophisticated," they aren't sophisticated enough to appreciate what "worked" 70-75 years ago. Even though these movies are old, there are still images and "lines" that are as ageless as Garbo's face.

LOVE is the perfect title for this hacked-down adaptation of Tolstoy's mammoth novel ANNA KARENINA. It was made to cash in on the popularity of Greta Garbo and John Gilbert, fresh from their box office triumph in FLESH AND THE DEVIL earlier the same year. Like virtually all of Garbo's silent films, much of the screen time is devoted to watching the great tormented Swede abandon herself to love, suffer for love, contemplate love, lose love, die. It is interesting to compare this version of the novel with the one made eight years later in which Garbo played opposite Fredric March who, while less dashing and handsome than Gilbert, did give a fine performance as the impetuous and essentially cruel Count Vronsky. In the latter film Garbo is less attractive due to the clash between the curly coiffure she is given and the strong planes and features of her face. She even looks like a male in drag in some scenes. But in LOVE she is beautiful and feminine throughout. The clinging 1920's-style dresses help, even if they detract from the authenticity of a story that is supposed to be set in 1870's Russia. Gilbert was one of the best actors of his era and the talent shows here. He is also a magnetic screen presence and one can understand why audiences in 1927 flocked to see these two together.

The scenes of mother-son tenderness between Garbo and Philippe deLacy do indeed seem incestuous as others have pointed out, but so do the scenes between Garbo and Freddie Bartholomew in the 1935 version. I think it was just Garbo's way of expressing love on screen; you see her perform the same kind of nuzzling in other movies, whether the attentions are being given to a man, a woman or a child. I disliked both endings, but at least Garbo was ravishing in the happy one. And remember, Garbo was just shy of 22 when she filmed this, yet she is believable as an older woman. She had a face that could express any age.

This movie cries out for a re-scoring. The print shown on TCM is marred by what sounds like muffled applause from time to time.

LOVE (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1927), directed by Edmund Goulding, reunites John Gilbert and Greta Garbo, who were initially teamed in the steamy romance triangle, FLESH AND THE DEVIL (MGM, 1927). From the novel "Anna Karenina" by Leo Tolstoy, MGM updates the photo-play from 19th Century Russia to more contemporary setting. In spite of these and other changes, the plot remains loyal to Tolstoy giant sized novel, abridged to an 80 minute movie.

The story opens during a violent snow storm where Anna Karenina (Greta Garbo) is trying to get to St. Petersburg, Russia. Count Alexi Vronsky (John Gilbert), a young military man just passing through, sees this beautiful woman in distress and offers to help her. Unable to get to St. Petersburg on time, Anna is offered shelter at an inn. Alexi and Anna are then mistaken for a married couple with their bags being placed in the same room. The two find themselves in love with Alexi unaware that Anna is married to a senator (Brandon Hurst) and mother to a young boy (Philippe De Lacy) she adores. When Senator Karenin learns of Anna's illicit affair, he at first decides not to do anything in hope that they would eventually destroy each other. But Anna finds she must face the decision of whether to leave home and never see her son again, or remain in her present loveless environment with the only redeeming person being her son.

In the supporting cast are George Fawcett as Grand Duke Michael; Emily Fitzroy as The Grand Duchess; and Mathilde Comont as Mazha, the innkeeper. Almost forgotten, LOVE was remade and improved during the sound era of 1935, restoring it back to ANNA KARENINA with Garbo reprising her tragic heroin role, possibly just as famous as her other heroine of CAMILLE (MGM, 1936). The remake, set in 19th century Russia, is supported by Fredric March, Basil Rathbone and Freddie Bartholomew in the Gilbert, Hurst and DeLacy roles. In both versions, Garbo's most effective scene occurs when Anna, forbidden ever to see her boy again, sneaks into the house to visit with him on his birthday during the absence of her husband. After their reunion, joy spreads over both their faces as mother and son embrace. Garbo shows her ability with these scenes as an emotional and personable actress. However, the modern 1920s costumes she wears in LOVE appear to be the most outrageous (ugly hats and dresses) ever worn by an attractive woman. The character of ANNA KARENINA returned to the screen again as a 1948 British adaptation starring Vivien Leigh and Sir Ralph Richardson. There was even a 1985 television movie with Jacqueline Bisset and Christopher Reeve, the best appreciated being the 1935 Garbo remake.

Long before the Turner company resurrected this hard to find cinema classic, LOVE made its television debut on New York City's public television station, WNET, Channel 13's presentation of MOVIE'S GREAT MOVIES, September 10, 1973, hosted by Richard Schickel, with the feature film accompanied by an original orchestral score composed for this and 12 other silent films in the series. When currently shown on Turner Classic Movies, especially on its Silent Sunday Nights, the score for LOVE has been changed to a new orchestration, but handicapped by off-screen laughter and unnecessary hand clapping in the wrong places, making one wonder why? On the plus side, TCM presents LOVE with two endings: happy and tragic, making this worth seeing with its alternate conclusions. (***)

Did you know Greta Garbo played Anna Karenina twice? I didn't know, but once I found out, I rented the silent version at once. It's not the greatest story out there, but it is a classic, and for some reason, I watch every version I can get my hands on.

This one has a different title, and for good reason: it's quite different. It's contemporary-and by that, of course, I mean it takes place in 1927-and the tragic tone is put on hold for the purpose of entertainment. Anna Karenina wears breezy dresses and a cloche hat while falling in love with Count Vronsky, a military hero. She's still married to an older, respectable man she doesn't love, and she still has a little boy she loves more than anything. Without spoiling anything, I'll just tell you to rent this version if you haven't been happy with the other versions you've seen. It's pretty different, and it will please a lot of people. I enjoyed it because it served as a perfect example of why silent movies were so popular. This movie doesn't feel like it's missing anything. It's a simple story of two people falling in love, and with only a few title cards, the entire story can be unfolded in silence. Dialogue simply isn't needed, which was why many audience members didn't see the need for talkies when they first came out. Many people nowadays don't know this, but it took a couple of years of gradually fading out the silent movies for people to completely abandon them and flock to the talkies.