Dr. Zhivago

I am not going to compare two versions of "Doctor Zhivago". To me they are so different that there is not much grounds for comparison.

I possibly can not share fascination with 1965 movie. It could be viewed as a love story performed by two great actors. But it is anything but Boris Pasternak's story. In Russia they would call it "lubok" - a colorful picture, work of one's imagination. Beautiful but having nothing to do with reality.

2002 version is a story that carries one away not only with its plot but also its truthfulness. And I don't mean just following the events of the book.

Boris Pasternak's book is full of pain - personal and collective. 2002 "Doctor Zhivago" shows true Russia, in so many small details - a woman calling chickens, a library in a church building, hospital beds in a corridor, Russian conversations in the background...And pain.

And it is also full of hope, as no matter how horrible life was, hope never died. And you can see hope in the movie - in Lara's eyes, in Yury's smile.

Thumbs up!

I watched this movie on accident actually, sending someone else to rent "Dr. Zhivago" for me, and he returned with this mini-series, I of course intending the 1967 classic which I love. I gamely watched the re-make anyway and was absolutely thrilled! This version actually had dialog! I hadn't realized how much an actual plot line or character development had been missing from the old one, but I was amazed at how well these characters were developed, lovingly acted and portrayed, and while I have not read the book, it appeared to be a good adaptation. Hans Matheson was a much better Zhivago than Omar Shariff, though I didn't think I would ever find myself saying so, and all the other characters were well-cast. The only disappointment to me was Sam Neill, who is one of my favorite actors. While his performance was solid, I didn't feel that he brought anything extra to Kamarovsky. Even if you love the classic, as I do, give this one a chance.

I have never seen the original Doctor Zhivago film, so I can't take any prejudged bias. This mini-series is possibly the best UK mini-series I have ever seen and is a sign that perhaps the UK networks are serious about creating some top qualtiy drama television that HBO have been producing for ages!

The acting is top quality, however, Sam Neill on top form steals every scene he's in, and that's saying something with the quality around him on screen. Keira Knightley and Hans Mathieson are great young stars who would easily make the transisition to big films (although Knightley's already done a Star Wars!). Kris Marshall as Pacha is a welcome revelation, worlds away from the tired "My Family" 'comedy'.

The scene always looks great and you can see the time and effort (not to forget money!) has gone into the creation of this great series. The overall look is very convincing and there is some beautiful theatrical-quality cinematography.

The story however is what makes anything work and here the story is truly great. An epic, tragic romance set against the backdrop of a revolting Russia. The story is handled so well it's a rewarding experience and if you're a bit of a weepie, have your tissues ready!

5/5

Pasternak's novel was a love story tucked in an epic set against the turbulent Russian revolution. The novel itself, with its story of illicit love in time of war, was almost the GONE WITH THE WIND of its day. When the time came to make the movie the task fell, quite naturally, to epic film maker David Lean, winner of the Academy Award for his last two pictures (BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA). Lean and screenwriter Robert Bolt (A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, LAWRENCE) did a superb job of distilling the essence of the novel, but left out many characters and events in their 197 minute motion picture (which, until the advent of Lucas and Spielberg, was one of the highest grossing movies ever). Robert Bolt won a deserved Oscar for his work on DOCTOR ZHIVAGO, for his job was formidable. But now that Pasternak's epic sweep was personified by Lean and Bolt, a television version was needed whose focus was Pasternak's (admittedly soap-opera) story without sacrificing any of the other events for time limitations.

The television version that finally appeared was barely an hour longer than Lean's. It would be unfair to compare this version to Lean's, which had a powerhouse cast (Christie, Steiger, Richardson, Courtenay, Guinness), a director with an eye for the cinematic, and a superb script. However, when some of the same sorts of scenes appear, the new version seems like a hollow echo.

This new version also truncates the novel. The dialog is pedestrian. In the old days British television would make adaptations of novels this size that went on for months (ZHIVAGO could sustain it). The interiors were videotaped like stage presentation and the exteriors were shot on grainy film, but the breadth of great novels came across. Four hours was not time enough to do justice to Pasternak. Everything seems to boil down to sex in this version, which is daring -- for the 1960s!

On the plus side, it must be said that Keira Knightley (Lara) is pure sex on the screen. Her character is hardly the thrall of Komarovsky she is in the novel (the victim she is in Lean's movie). Again, this might have been daring forty years ago. It seems the writers of this movie missed the other revolution (the sexual revolution) that might've gotten them past this approach to the material to focus on the larger view of the Russian revolution the novel presents. We had the love story, done a whole lot better, decades ago. We're still waiting for a version that does justice to Pasternak.

I've seen David Lean's version, this version and studied (briefly) the life of Pasternak under the Communists. For some reason I can't find a Russian version of this novel - maybe some predjudice still lingers in the FSU. Of all the characters in this novel, Pasternak's favorite isn't Yuri - it's Lara. Maybe Winston Churchchill wasn't talking so much about Mother Russia as he was about her women (there's a reason they call it the Motherland). Russia is an impenetrable mystery, impossible to summarise in a few words and women such as Lara are very difficult to portray for a non-Russian. So don't be surprised if Keira Knightley doesn't seem to have captured the essence of Lara - in fact, she does quite a competent job, probably because of Julie Christie before her. The one quality that Christie had and which is reflected in Knightley is a quiet acceptance of fate (in Russian "sydba"). It's a quality that is very attractive and also the most irritating aspect of Lara. You want to yell at her to kick Komarovsky between the legs but she just soldiers on. Julie Christie , however, captured Lara in one look in David Lean's movie - when Omar Shariff enjoins her to go with Komarovsky and without a word, she looks back at Omar/Yuri with a wordless plea. Knightley's Lara is more forthright, more self assured and in that respect she is faithful to Pasternak's writing. But Christie - and that one look- will always be Lara to me.