Ana Karenina

I absolutely love the novel Anna Karenina, but I am extremely displeased to find out that none of the movies really focus at all on the Levin/Kitty plot. There have been numerous arguments between scholars over whether or not Tolstoy had two protagonists--Anna, and Levin. To simply gloss over such a large part of Tolstoy's novel doesn't do justice to his work. And as I don't particularly like Anna or Vronsky, I definitely won't be investing my time in watching a movie entirely about them. It's a shame that people who see the many movies made about Anna Karenina won't be getting a better view of what the novel really is like.

For a film that tries to pack a 900 page novel into 95 minutes, Clarence Brown's rendition of Tolstoy's masterpiece is quite impressive. Naturally, there are aspects of the story that are forced aside- too little time is spent on the relationship between Kitty and Levin (who was a self-portrait of Tolstoy)- but Brown manages to portray the affair between Anna and Vronsky with plenty of depth and emotion.

Greta Garbo, one of the greatest actresses of the 30's, is stunning in the lead. Frederic March is a little flat as Vronsky, dressed in his military uniform in almost every scene, but manages to do well with the character nonetheless. Basil Rathbone's usual grimness suits Karenin perfectly. The production design is spectacular. Brown directs his cast so that they always stand out from the scenery, clearly visible amidst the decadence and imperial settings. The ballroom scenes, where characters dance gracefully while exchanging crucial dialogue, particularly impressed me.

A delight for Garbo fans, as well as anyone who likes costume pieces or literary adaptations.

Greta Garbo first tackled Anna Karenina in the film "Love," which she made with John Gilbert. That film, however, did not follow the novel totally.

Under Clarence Brown's direction, she now plays the role again opposite Frederic March as Vronsky and Basil Rathbone as Karenin.

Having seen the Vivien Leigh version as well, it's hard not to make comparisons. This version certainly moves along better than the Leigh version.

Here, the Levin-Kitty (Maureen O'Sullivan) romance is no longer really a subplot, but a very minor part of the film. The production values are tremendous, as they were also in the Leigh Anna Karenina.

What the Vivien Leigh version had that this does not is Ralph Richardson's portrayal of Karenin, which is magnificent. Though Basil Rathbone is very good, no one can hold a candle to Richardson in this role, in my opinion.

Rathbone is cold and authoritarian; Richardson is cold and authoritarian but pathetic, as a man who cannot love. He is also frightening.

The scene where Anna sneaks in to see her child and meets Karenin upon leaving had much more tension in the Leigh film because of Richardson's quiet menace. What Rathbone does with a clipped voice and cold expression, Richardson does internally.

Apparently, for some reason, casting an appropriate Vronsky missed in both films. This is a man for whom Anna gives up the most precious thing in her life, her child, and forgoes her reputation.

Frederic March, outgoing and charming, isn't quite right. Vronsky is a soldier, but he also has an element of passivity about him. Given Anna's controlling husband, she would be attracted to that.

I didn't pick that up with March, and in the Leigh film, Kieron Moore was TOO passive. Also, I think Vronsky should be drop-dead gorgeous. I mean, if you're going to dump your marriage, your child, your reputation, Vronsky really ought to be a dreamboat.

Since this is an MGM film, perhaps Robert Taylor would have been better: handsome, strong in voice and appearance, charming, romantic with just a touch of wimp.

The production values are magnificent, and Garbo is extremely effective in the role - beautiful, ethereal, and tragic. If she lacks anything, it is perhaps the vulnerability needed for Anna. Freddie Bartholemew is adorable as Anna's son.

I was much more involved with the characters in this Anna Karenina than in the Leigh, which was a very detached experience. This film was directed with more warmth. Very good.

Greta Garbo brings great pathos to the role of Tolstoy's tragic heroine, though it's anyone's guess why her Anna would be drawn even remotely to Frederic March's stiff, colorless Count Vronsky. Basil Rathbone, on the other hand, is all that he should be as Anna's cold, unforgiving husband and Freddie Bartholomew is quite fine as their son. It was inevitable that the complete breadth of Tolstoy's massive novel would suffer somewhat in its transfer to the screen and this is most keenly felt in the film's treatment of the secondary love story involving Kitty and Levin, which is all but discarded. Nonetheless, this MGM production, directed by Clarence Brown, is utterly involving. With the very pretty Maureen O'Sullivan as Kitty; Gyles Isham as Levin; and Reginald Owen, Constance Collier, Reginald Denny, May Robson, Ethel Griffies and Phoebe Foster.

For many years, I know the temptation to say - it is the best adaptation of the Tolstoy novel. The motif - more than beautiful performance of Greta Garbo, proposing the right, wise, amazing Anna Karenina. And Freddie Bartholomew as the ideal Sergey. And Gyles Isham saving his too small Levin. And, sure, Basil Rathbone proposing the cold Karenin, the only for who my compassion works very bad. But the lead motif has not a name. It is the genius of Clarence Brown to propose the film who honor Tolstoy and gives the chance to Garbo to be shining scene by scene. An old adaptation for who, after recent ones, so ambitious and glamorous, could be...dusty. But see it ! And you have the great chance to meet a perfect work. Its source of perfection - a so rare grace of nuances and details.