User reviews

If you want to bring such an vast, sweeping yet intensely human novel such as Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace to the screen with both its breadth and depth intact you can do either one of two of things. You can film it page-for-page, and make an eight-hour behemoth, as Sergei Bondarchuk did with the 1960s Russian production. Or, you can prune it down to something more manageable, excising whole characters and subplots, but recreating certain sections of Tolstoy's work more or less verbatim to preserve what is vital about his work. This latter is the approach taken for Dino de Laurentiis's 1956 Italian-American co-production.

The narrative here focuses mainly on just three of Tolstoy's characters – Pierre, Natasha and Alexei – portrayed by Henry Fonda, Audrey Hepburn and Mel Ferrer respectively. Fonda is really too old to play the youthful Pierre, but he is not as severely miscast as some have said, pulling off the early scenes of Pierre as the gangly, drunken student with a fair degree of believability. Hepburn brilliantly handles the aging of her character, transforming the naïve teenager into a mature and confident woman while still maintaining the same core persona. If only something as complementary could be said of Mel Ferrer, who takes to acting the same way anvils take to floating. His appallingness is matched only by the woman who plays his wife, Milly Vitale. There are some decent supporting players though. Herbert Lom gives a surprisingly heartfelt performance as Napoleon. Oskar Homolka brilliantly plays the archetypal scruffy old general who's too high-ranking and experienced to bother with all that decorum business, his gestures forceful but with a half-hearted brevity to them. And John Mills is bizarrely like someone out of a Monty Python film.

Director King Vidor was a veteran of old Hollywood and just the sort of director to handle the mix of big canvas and intimacy. He shows what must have been extraordinary patience in setting up hordes of extras, carts and cannons for authentic looking crowd scenes, but then makes them a briefly glimpsed backdrop, never really dwelling on the massive scope or showing it off for its own sake. This seemingly contradictory tack gives us a sense of the story happening in a real place, but never allows it to detract from the main players and their stories. Vidor is constantly implying things with the simplest of cinematic tricks, and this helps to make up for the gaps in plot that the adaptation necessitates. For example, when Hepburn and Vittorio Gassman kiss at the opera, the angle gradually changes to reveal the reflection of a door in a mirror. This subtle move plants the idea in our heads that someone may walk in on them, and it gives the moment a sense of unease and wrongness. Vidor's canny ability to suggest mood and temperament, particularly evident in his framing of the inner monologues during the dance scene, also helps to cover any deficit in the acting.

At three-and-a-half hours, this is still quite a long old movie. And yet, thanks to some compelling imagery and strong narrative it moves faster than many a 90-minuter. Shorn of much of Tolstoy's original material as it is, it is still long enough to give us that feeling of the passage of time and development of character, to make Fonda's transition from a foppish lad in Western European attire to a bearded man in Russian garb feel like more than just a change of clothes. This version of War and Peace certainly has a fair few things wrong with it, yet still manages to be a lucid and passionate – if not entirely faithful – adaptation of a great work of literature.

Given that trimming Tolstoy's WAR AND PEACE down to the length of one feature film (even at three-and-a-half hours) is probably a fool's errand to begin with, this 1956 version deserves more respect than it's generally gotten -- though the comments here indicate that the film may actually be gaining the respect that critics and film historians have so long denied it.

The movie does suffer from two undeniable shortcomings. First is the atrocious sound recording that has blighted virtually every Italian movie ever made. As some of the comments have noted, movies shot at Rome's Cinecitta had their sound post-dubbed rather than recorded on the set. But actually, this practice was then (and remains) very common. The sound in Italian movies stands out simply because they were so bad at it. The brutal truth is, even the greatest masterpieces of Fellini, De Sica, Rosselini, etc. are less than they might have been because Italian sound technology was so slipshod. And so it is with WAR AND PEACE: it's hard to suspend disbelief when soldiers struggling across a river sound like someone dropping quarters into a toilet.

The other shortcoming is the appalling miscasting of Henry Fonda as Pierre Bezhukov. It's the worst performance of his career, and he looks and sounds about as Russian as a slice of pumpkin pie. One commenter here said Alec Guinness should have played Pierre. It's an intriguing suggestion, and of course Sir Alec was always good. Even better, I think, would have been Peter Ustinov. In 1956 he was Pierre to the very life.

But the rest of the casting is genuinely inspired. Oskar Homolka as Gen. Kutuzov, Barry Jones as Count Rostov, Jeremy Brett as Nikolai, Herbert Lom as Napoleon -- all could hardly be improved upon. And Audrey Hepburn was simply born to play Natasha. And Mel Ferrer as Prince Andrei ... well, he did have his faults as an actor (to say the least!), but at least he looked the part.

Beyond that, the movie has lavish production values, impressive battle scenes, and one truly great and powerful sequence, the French Army's disastrous retreat from Russia, that takes up much of the last hour.

There's no substitute, of course, for reading the novel (I've read it three times myself). But this 1956 movie makes a worthy introduction, and even helps to keep Tolstoy's complex plot straight when you do get around to reading it.

Perhaps the best you can say for Vidor's long, (200 minutes), but surprisingly compact version of Tolstoy's novel is that it is no disgrace despite being 'internationalized' for mass consumption. (It's got an Italian producer, was filmed in Italy, an American director and a large cast from all over the place, leading in some cases to some very unconvincing dubbing). But it's also largely intelligent, well enough acted, particularly by Audrey Hepburn who is an enchanting Natasha, and visually splendid. No less than eight writers worked on the script which fails conspicuously to translate Tolstoy's 'grand ideas' into anything other than Readers-Digest form but then even Bondarchuk's even longer Russian version didn't quite manage the leap from page to screen. You may be forgiven, then, for thinking you are watching nothing more than a grandiose soap-opera even if it's a cut above run-of-the-mill historical 'soap-operas'. But in an age when three-hour-plus epics were ten-a-penny it didn't catch on and come Oscar time it was largely over-looked. (The even bigger but vastly inferior "Around the World in 80 Days" took Best Picture while "War and Peace" failed to snag a nomination in that category). But it is worth seeing if only for Hepburn's under-rated performance and for Henry Fonda, too old and miscast as Pierre, but bringing his liberal gravitas to the part, all the same.

I've read the book and seen this version several times. The main drawback is of course time.

Thus, it must inevitably slight: a) many of the characters who bring joy to reading the novel - the princely father of the Kuragins, Sonja's story, Nicholas falling in love with Marya, the forgiveness by Bolkonsky (Ferrer) of Anatole Kuragin when his leg is amputated on a table beside which he is lain out, etc. and b) much of the philosophy contained in the book - whether about the masons or the purpose of life.

However, as a sort of highlights version of the novel, I thought it dealt well with the main lines of the plot.

It also is clearly 1950s film-making. There is little sense indoors of the lighting of the time, the sets look generally clean or deliberately destroyed (rather than mysterious and gloomy). In fact, the entire film appears all too clearly delineated - there is little of the kind of murkiness one would find in such a movie being made today - say, the way Schindler's List looks - or The Last Emperor looks.

The movie is also benefitted by having Audrey Hepburn, Anita Ekberg and John Mills - physically they are EXACTLY what I imagined of these characters - and I thought Mills and Hepburn were excellent. (And what Ekberg lacked in ability to convey emotion, she gained from her jaw-dropping embodiment of the buxom blonde!). The Henry Fonda choice for Bezuhov is an odd one - he's not the first person I think of when I think of a huge heavy awkward bear of a man. He did the best he could but was clearly miscast. Prince Bolkonsky (the father) and the Count and Countess Rostov were first rate - so were the choices for Napoleon, Homolka as Kutuzov, Kuragin, Dolokhov and the Rostov family. Mel Ferrer was ok - but imagine, say, the Terence Stamp of Far From the Madding Crowd and how he could have done.

All in all, this is clearly a movie of its time in cinematography, sets, the clearly drawn lines of the script - but it is entertaining and does about as well as possible in dramatizing in 3 1/2 hours a book of over 1000 pages.

Beautiful movie to look at (Cinematography Oscar nom was well earned). Fine epic movie score. Good direction and editing. Some of the best costume work ever put on film. No one even today could do a finer job of costuming.

Mel Ferrer is nowhere near the same league as Omar Sharif was in "Zhivago". Sharif was great, Ferrer just average. Ferrer is a major drawback. In contrast, Fonda displays tremendous acting ability (not having read the book I can concentrate on his performance rather than whether he looks the part). Hepburn is perfection and she delivers a great acting performance.

Yes it is a 1950's style movie, which of course has some dated aspects. However, in the case of costume, cinematography and some of the acting you couldn't see better in a film of any era. This is an impressive effort all-around.

Based on the novel by Leo Tolstoy this film essentially revolves around four different characters during the time leading up to the war between Russia and France under "Napoleon Bonaparte" (Herbert Lom). As the film starts out "Pierre Bezukhov" (Henry Fonda) is a troubled young man who agonizes over the fact that he is illegitimate and not accepted by his wealthy father. He is also a pacifist and one of the few Russians who happens to be an admirer of Napoleon. This particular opinion puts him at odds with his very close friend "Prince Andrei Bolkonsky" (Mel Ferrer) who is an officer in the Russian Army and holds a set of ideals which Pierre wishes he could emulate. The fourth character is an enthusiastic, young woman of nobility by the name of "Natasha Rostov" (Audrey Hepburn) who everybody likes due to her warm and positive disposition. What none of these people realize is just how badly all of their long-held beliefs and values will be sorely tested as the French Army steadily advances toward Moscow. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that--although this movie was quite long (approximately 203 minutes)--it failed to capture the depth of the great novel due in large part to the exclusion of numerous other characters written about by the author. Of course, to include all of them would have taken an enormous amount of time and effort which would probably have been better suited for a mini-series than the current format. Be that as it may, this was still a decent film for the most part and for that reason I have rated it accordingly. Slightly above average.

King Vidor's WAR AND PEACE was never going to do proper justice to Tolstoy's massive novel, certainly not at four hours and certainly not in production code era Hollywood, but for what it is, it is a decent spectacle. I'm not crazy about the film myself (but it must be noted that 1950s biblical and historical epics are genres I have no use for), though I am glad I watched it if only for one thing: Audrey Hepburn as Natasha. She was rarely as perfectly cast as she was here. The same cannot be said for Henry Fonda (too old) or Mel Ferrer (not that great an actor in general).

This epic has the reputation for being a limp, lifeless, mechanical thing; a vulgar simplification of Tolstoy. The latter accusation is partly correct, and thank goodness for it. War and Peace, the novel, has many great things, but also many excrescences: it goes on way too long, padded out with tediously detailed philosophies and theories of war; it also studiously refuses loose ends.

There are flaws. The script, though a model of clarity (unlike most literary adaptations, which concentrate on all the big set-pieces, creating narrative confusion), but short on inspiration. There is a dispiriting, unimaginative reliance on voiceover, and unnecessary soliloquys. The whole thing also goes on way too long.

Mel Ferrer is, without doubt, the worst actor in the world; he plays the dashing, tragic Prince Andrei with all the vigour of a mouldy plank. His part is pivotal, narratively, thematically and symbolically, so he features in a lot of scenes where his monotonous lack of expression makes the film stop dead. Henry Fonda, in many ways ideal as the Tolstoy altar-ego Pierre, who must move morally from observer to actor, is frequently defeated by the terrible dialogue, making this wonderful actor seem clumsy and amateurish. (Herbert Lom, however, manages to suggest great humanity behind the hammy pomp of Napolean).

I only mention these faults to show that the film's critics have their point. I also suggest that WAR AND PEACE is nearly a masterpiece for two reasons. King Vidor, whose work I'm largely (and shamefully) unfamiliar with, directs this film with awesome, authoritive lightness of touch. He pays respectful lip service to the big Tolstoyan themes, focusing particularly on families, the relations between parents and children, old traditional reactionary Russia, and the tentative, youthful impulse towards freedom.

I say lip-service, because his main interest in the film lies elsewhere. It lies in the expression of the emotional life of his characters. For although the film is a massive historical epic, it works best as a domestic melodrama. Characters, who can't express themselves in this hierarchical society, are allowed a voice through the film's direction, which forsakes literal realism, to tell us what is going on in their heads (and hearts). Exaggerated colour and carefully contrived composition offer us a second, more subtle and personal story, to the main, surface narrative. This might make WAR AND PEACE a more right-wing work, ignoring the processes of history and the plight of the serfs, in favour of sympathising with a caste of slave-owners, but Hollywood was never very good at socio-economic analyses.

Vidor's other great theme seems to be nature, and man's relation to it. He has little interest in invoking a real nineteenth century Russia; his Moscow is as exquisitely artificial as Sternberg's THE SCARLET EMPRESS, and his use of architecture and space to both show the distances between people, and the the fathomless emptiness of the soul, is positively Antonionian. With the natural world, however, there is a real feeling, beyond mere backdrop scenery, that is unthinkable in any contemporary Hollywood film. Primarily a movie about people and history, it is eternal nature that watches on, the battles, deaths, retreats. Indeed, it is nature that saves the Russian people, in the face of massive military odds, and it is nature that frames the melancholy, yet hopeful, resolution. (It's also interesting to ask why, at the heighth of the Cold War, Hollywood should decide to make a great Russian epic? To tastelessly evoke a 'glorious' pre-Soviet past? Or to enjoy the razing of Moscow to the ground?)

The second reason to love this film is, of course, the incomparable, beautiful, Audrey Hepburn. She is so right as Natasha (when I read the book as a kid, I pictured Audrey all the way through, without even knowing she had played her on film), the saviour of the book, as well as the film. It is one of the great performances - its modernity and truth blows away the dusty period conventions (indeed, at her first ball, she is as moving as a 50s teenager at her prom). Her intelligence, insight, passion (and she is a lot more erotic in this film than her supporters ever give her credit for) and grace are perfectly in tune with Vidor's conception, and her scenes have an extraordinary emotional force. She is the life of the film, and its moral centre in the absence of a convincing Pierre. The film plods to a slow death without her. The film essays three moral developments - Natasha's, Pierre's and Andrei's, but hers is the most moving and tragic. The change to sadness and understanding of the once gay and vivacious Natasha seems a terrible loss.

Anybody who even as much attempts to adapt Leo Tolstoy's magnum opus War and Peace deserves at least a pat on the back for trying, regardless of how successful it is in doing so or not. The novel is one of the greatest there is, but because of the enormous length (one of the longest novels I've ever read, and it was admittedly not the easiest to immediately get gripped), very rich story and dialogues, and complex characterisations and themes it is also one of the most difficult to adapt.

While this 1956 film adaptation of War and Peace may not quite work (one of the most problematic War and Peace adaptations), it is a valiant effort and still has a lot of merits. The costumes and settings, while not as evocative of Russia as it could have been, are incredibly lavish, the colours are bold and opulent and the cinematography is very handsome, spectacle-wise War and Peace is hugely impressive. Also incredible is Nino Rota's music score, it's gorgeously lush in an unmistakably Nino Rota sort of way and it really stirs the emotions, not one of my favourite scores of his (seeing as he wrote so many great ones) but hearing how effectively it works in the film and how well it works as a work on its own it is clear why Rota and his music are so highly regarded. King Vidor directs very thoughtfully, with an eye for spectacle and addresses as many of Tolstoy's themes as possible.

The war scenes are powerful and moving, with the French army's retreat from Russia resonating especially strongly. The performances are mostly odd, though reasonably odd on paper for some. Audrey Hepburn was simply born for Natasha, she portrays her with a real charm and touching dignity, and the camera simply adores her in some to-die-for shots. John Mills is similarly excellent, giving the film some telling optimism without taking one out of the situation. Napoleon could easily have been written and performed as a hammy buffoon, but not only is Herbert Lom delightfully pompous and imposingly tyrannical but he also brings some truly affecting humanity to the role. Anita Ekberg is luminous and emotive, and Okskar Homolka is ideal casting as well.

However, the sound quality is agreed very poorly done here, while the voices sounded echoey the surrounding sound is artificial (this is including the war scenes) and like it was recorded on near-silent and the dialogue sounded canned. The script is thought-provoking and literate, but while the themes and events are present the impact and the substance they should have aren't so much, a lot of it too on-the-surface. With the story, the simplification didn't bother me, seeing as it was only a nearly three-and-a-half-hour length (whereas a 10-12 part mini-series is much more likely to do this massive story complete justice), but the rather sluggish pacing, on-the-surface writing and that some of the drama scenes were needlessly stretched to the point of near-tedium did. Two performances didn't come over so well either. Mel Ferrer is very wooden and stiff, with his performance often lacking in expression. More problematic is a badly miscast Henry Fonda in a rare 'bad' performance, didn't have the 'he was physically wrong' problem like a lot did but it was more to do with that he made little if any attempt to look and sound Russian, it was more Henry Fonda playing himself, while looking and sounding bored, but he just looked so disengaged and clumsy. Ferrer at least looked the part, so whatever the large shortcomings there were in his performance he did acquit himself a little better than Fonda.

Overall, doesn't quite work but is a valiant effort adapting a classic but very difficult book. 6/10 Bethany Cox

Tolstoy's mammoth Russian novel "Voyna i mir" cannot be summed up in a few mere sentences...however, King Vidor's movie-adaptation certainly can, and therein lies a telling difference between the two. An alarming amount of Hollywood generalities have been incorporated into this script (apparently worked on by numerous writers at different intervals), turning a war story into a star-crossed lovers saga. Grand costume spectacle mixes peculiarly with battlefield drama, just as the location footage mixes uneasily with the studio work. In 1800 Russia, as Napoleon is taking over Europe but finding resistance in Russia and England, a virginal, somewhat boy-happy Countess can't decide to whom her heart belongs: a family friend who initially supports Napoleon or a dashing Prince. The Prince soon becomes a Colonel in the war against the French as Napoleon's army advances, leading to the one spectacular, engrossing sequence wherein Henry Fonda (in dress clothes and spectacles), on a jaunt through the countryside, inadvertently finds himself in the middle of battle. Of the large, international cast, only Herbert Lom as Napoleon seems suitable. Audrey Hepburn wears a succession of lovely outfits, yet always seems to be looking out the window or standing on a balcony, speaking to the skies (at one point she speaks to herself in voice-over, as does Prince Mel Ferrer, and you think the producers have to be kidding!). Henry Fonda looks very handsome, but can't seem to get a grasp on his character; his old-chums relationship with Ferrer is scuttled by Ferrer's fearsome non-acting, and the love-triangle asides involving the Countess are piqued, at best. Director Vidor received an Academy Award nomination for his work, but only the battle scenes excel--the rest is a tad clumsy. ** from ****

King Vidor's version of Leo Tolstoy's WAR AND PEACE has finally been released in the U.S. by Paramount and is a welcome addition to my DVD collection. I have been tempted many times to purchase a Hong Kong pressing of this title -- but I'm glad that I refrained. While this DVD does not contain much in the way of "Extras", it does contain a nice wide screen transfer that captures to look of its original release. Paramount, rather then following in the footsteps of the other major studios, did not use the CinemaScope wide-screen process developed by 20th Century-Fox and introduced in 1953 with their Lloyd C. Douglas adaptation of THE ROBE. Rather, Paramount developed their own wide- screen process and called it VistaVision. The VistaVision system moved 35mm film through the camera side-ways, resulting in a picture negative that was close to 70mm in size. The film was then reduced to a wide-screen image (usally around 1.85:1 instead of CinemaScope's 2.65:1 ratio). Coupled with genuine Technicolor (before it became teamed with Eastman Color) photography, VistaVision was capable of stunning images. WAR AND PEACE was photographed by JACK CARDIFF, one of finest cinematographers ever to grace film (THE RED SHOES is one of his works), resulting in one of the most beautifully photographed films of all-time! Alas, stereophonic sound was not generally employed by Paramount and so WAR AND PEACE has only a mono track -- nice, but not as nice a stereophonic track would have been. As to the film itself, I can only express that I have loved it from the first seeing in 1956 -- and continue to find it a great and involving film experience. The film is truly spectactular (even when compared to the 6-hour Russian version of 1968), but it works for me because of the human story. AUDREY HEPBURN as Natasha is perfection itself. She grows from the delightful innocence of childhood to the wisdom (and beauty) of adulthood. HENRY FONDA, often criticized as being wrong for the role of Pierre, is very effective as a man searching for and finding the true meaning of life and events. The film ends with this marvelous quotation from Tolstoy: "The most difficult thing -- but an essential one -- is to love Life, to love it even while one suffers, because Life is all, Life is God, and to love Life means to love God". And that is what this film captures -- and this is what sets it apart from other great epics. Nino Rota's score is also a great asset to this films effectiveness. As to the DVD itself -- Paramount, while not restoring it in the manner done for their recent releases of ROMAN HOLIDAY and SUNSET BOULEVARD, have still provided us with a fine DVD! There is no commentary track (most of the principals have passed away) -- but it would have been nice to have heard from Jack Cardiff. Both the B&W Behind-the-Scenes Trailer (showing location shooting of a key charge scene and a few words from director, King Vidor) and the re-release theatrical trailer, are interesting. How does the film compare to the book? I'm currently reading the book -- and can honestly say that I'm glad that I've seen the movie first. It helps greatly in keeping track of the numerous characters and plot developments. The book is one of the enduring masterpieces of literature -- but this film stands on its own as a great motion picture! Thanks Paramount for the DVD release!!

I'm sure the consideration was financial for Henry Fonda to consider doing War and Peace. He said himself he wasn't right for the part, too old and too middle American with that Nebraska twang. I'm sure that Fonda who had three kids to support did this one for the money.

Personally I think that Sir Alec Guinness would have been a perfect Pierre. But I guess Guinness was busy with The Bridge on the River Kwai.

That being said this is a perfect Reader's Digest realization of Tolstoy's classic novel. If a three hour film could be called a Reader's Digest version of anything. War and Peace was later done as a mini-series and that was indeed a better framework for a work as sprawling as Tolstoy's.

The battle scenes at Austerlitz and Borodino and the French retreat from Russia are staged superbly. Dino De Laurentis had a DeMille like eye for spectacle and this is one of his best works.

Aside from Fonda the rest of the cast is well suited to their roles. John Mills has a brief, but telling part as Platon, a prisoner taken with Fonda during the Moscow occupation.

Come to think of it, Mills wouldn't have made a bad Pierre himself.

Anyone who has read, as I read, the entire book "War and Peace", has a clear idea of ​​the enormous work that must have done to make this film. Its probably one of the most complex war dramas ever written and the largest dramatic book I have ever read. It's not my bedside book, but it's certainly one of my favorites when it comes to Russian literature. Directed by King Vidor (who transformed this film into his greatest masterpiece), he has Audrey Hepburn (in the role of Natasha), Henry Fonda (as Pierre) and Mel Ferrer (as Prince Andrei).

The script is very faithful to the book and seeks to make a legitimate adaptation. However, its very slow, giving too much emphasis and spending too much time on certain scenes without need, and it lacks emotions and strength, being unable to thrill or grab our attention. Perhaps the complexity of the original material has caused so many difficulties for the writing team that they have not been able to handle it in the best way. As for the actors, I liked Audrey Hepburn, she knew how to give life and joy to her character, but I expected more from Mel Ferrer, he did not understand his character. I hated Henry Fonda... he had one of the most psychologically rich characters in the novel and simply was unable to deal with it. It was a clear casting error.

The film has excellent war scenes and portrays very well the armies but always without emotion or danger, in a very warm manner. The costumes and scenarios fill my expectations and have taken great attention with detail and realism, which is quite pleasant. Cinematography is quite pleasant, although it exaggerates in brightness sometimes. Nino Rota is responsible for the soundtrack and did a good job. Anyway, as this movie has the worst sound effects I've heard in movies, I will not criticize the soundtrack.

This film version of Tolstoy's novel nicely captures the essence of his story. The VistaVision, Technicolor photography by Jack Cardiff give the the set pieces the look of a classic painting. Nino Rota's lavish score perfectly compliments the visuals. The casting is superb; and even though Fonda is physically wrong in the critical role of Pierre, his dignified persona makes up for it. Hepburn, as ever, is radiant as Natasha, and hits her marks perfectly. Anita Ekberg's superstructure alone brings Helene to life; Ferrer, Homolka and Mills are all, likewise, wonderful in this. The largely underappreciated Herbert Lom is absolutely brilliant as Napoleon. Practically speaking, this is a notable film adaptation of an enormous literary work, inspite of any comparisons one would care to make between the book and the movie.

The task of adapting a fifteen book novel into a film that is not only of 'acceptable' length but also commercially viable is truly daunting. As it happened this one fared extremely well at the box office. Purely as a film it should be judged not by what has been taken out but by the effectiveness of what has been left in.

There are some truly spectacular scenes here, mostly directed by King Vidor, with a few, notably the French army's entry into and retreat from 'Moscow the Holy', being handled by Mario Soldati. It is the intimate scenes directed by Mr. Vidor that seem somehow lacking.

As Natasha Rostova Miss Audrey Hepburn is utterly luminous and gives one of her finest and most captivating performances. Her casting facilitated the use of her then husband Mel Ferrer as Prince Andrei Bolkonsky. Mr. Ferrer has an aristocratic bearing and an air of mystery but is alas rather bland. The other man in Natasha's life, Pierre Bezukhov, whom she eventually marries, is played by Henry Fonda. By his own admission he regretted taking the role and resented changes made to Irwin Shaw's original script by the director. He is a far cry from the 'stout, heavily built young man with close-cropped hair' of Tolstoy's imagining. He is a marvellous actor but here he cannot rise above his ludicrous miscasting.

The performances to note here are the profligate Kuragin of Vittorio Gassman, the wily General Kutuzov of Oscar Homolka and especially the egomaniacal Napoleon of Herbert Lom. Mr Lom had previously played the role on film in 1942 and would come full circle when performing it in an instantly forgettable play in the 1970's. Anita Ekberg certainly has the 'wow' factor as Pierre's unfaithful, gold-digging wife Helene. Her oestrogen practically leaps off the screen.

None better than Maestro Nino Rota to write the score nor Mario Chiari for the art design. Simply splendid is the cinematography of Jack Cardiff whose contribution to the duel scene between Pierre and Kuragin is especially impressive considering it is filmed on a sound stage!

As with all films shot in Italy we have the eternal problem of post-synchronisation with booming voices sounding as if they are talking in a bathroom. King of the 'dubbers' Robert Rietty is again very much in evidence.

In one of the epilogues to Tolstoy's novel Pierre and Natasha have settled down to a bourgeois existence and in middle-age she has a tendency to nag. Oh well, that's Life!

I think much of the reason I score this film only a 7 is because I have actually seen the full Russian version twice and the Russian film, while far from perfect, completely overwhelms my enjoyment of this Hollywoodized version. Let me explain. The Russian version is incredibly long (over 6 1/2 hours) and had a HUGE cast--thousands and thousands of soldiers and countless actors who had speaking roles. It fell short for me at times because the Russian style was, at times, very strange and unfamiliar (such as when the bomb landed in front of a soldier and spun out of control--taking a seeming eternity to explode--followed by a closeup of the man's eye as he contemplated infinity). Considering, though, that Tolstoy's book was HUGE (and I mean BIG HONKING HUGE), this long presentation was necessary and any attempt to cram the plot into a more traditional format (3 1/2 hours in this King Vidor version) just doesn't do the story justice. The acting, direction and pacing in this 1950s version is decent though also a bit cold and forgettable.

I finally saw the complete movie on DVD (I had seen part of it once on cable some years ago). I will agree with and not expound further on many of the other comments already posted; the picture is good, the sound not so, and the acting mixed. I will, however, put in a plug for the truly great 1968 Russian version of the film. The sound is almost as bad as the Vidor film (USSR sound recording in 68 was not much better than Italy in 56)but visually there is no comparison. Bonderchuk had the full cooperation of the Soviet government, and most scenes were filmed in actual locations. The cast is unequaled in size (I forget how many 100,000 were used in the battle scenes). The acting (the original Russian, not the wooden English dubbed voices) is superior, and the casting is arguably more authentic. I will also indicate that the "standard" edited version (as offered on the Kultur label) is disappointing (not widescreen, and available only in an abridged, dubbed, version - although the sound may be slightly better). Try to find the "international" version which is uncut and offers over a dozen dubbing/subtitle options. It is a full 8 hours and ships on 5 DVDs. Although not currently available, there was a miniseries made (I believe by BBC) that featured Anthony Hopkins as Pierre. What it lacks in scope it definitely makes up for in acting and thoroughness of treatment. I am anxiously awaiting it's DVD release...

As with most literary adaptations, it is fundamentally pointless to speculate on the extent to which King Vidor's memorable movie either departs from or reproduces the themes and style of Tolstoy's source- text. Film and literature are fundamentally different media and should be treated as such.

What is perhaps more suggestive is to look at this version of WAR AND PEACE in its context of production. Napoleon (Herbert Lom) has the desire to invade Russia and hence expand the scope and range of the French Empire, just like Hitler had imagined fifteen years before the film's release. Initial success was followed by ultimate failure, as the Russians, spearheaded in the film by Field Marshal Kutzorov (Oscar Homolka), fight a war of attrition, eschewing direct combat in favor of occasional guerrilla raids. Napoleon cannot understand his opponents' behavior: no one will come to sign an official surrender. Eventually he is forced to withdraw, and his troops have to complete a 3000+ kilometer journey out of Russia while enduring the exigencies of winter. With little or no capacity for resistance, they are easily overrun by Dolokhov (Helmut Dantine) and his forces. Vidor's film offers a powerful denunciation of dictators, who are often so crazed with ambition that they have little or no concern either for military logistics or for the welfare of their forces. Napoloeon, like Hitler, gets what he deserves.

Yet WAR AND PEACE is equally critical of the Russian side. Natasha Rostova (Audrey Hepburn) inhabits a bourgeois society where outward show matters: as in many latter-day Austen adaptations, most members of her class spend their time trying to see and be seen at balls. Vidor includes several dance-sequences that might be pretty to look at, but suggest the trivialities of the Russian world; even though the French army are drawing nearer and nearer, no one seems to be taking any notice. Eventually her lover Prince Andrei Bolkonsky (Mel Ferrer) is sent away to the front and discovers the realities of life. Natasha has a brief fling with another man, but comes to discover the realities of life when she and her family are forced to evacuate Moscow to avoid being annihilated.

The film contains some spectacular battle-sequences, no more so when the French and Russian forces meet, and Pierre Bezukhov (Henry Fonda) tours the Russian battle-lines and discovers to his cost just how hellish the world of combat can be. Having been taken prisoner by the French, he is marched back to France with the departing forces, where he meets a fellow-prisoner Platon Karataev (John Mills) and discovers a way to survive even in a world seemingly crashing to destruction around him.

WAR AND PEACE contains a happy ending of sorts, as Pierre and Natasha reunite after several years apart, but the scene of utter destruction facing them makes it a Pyrrhic happiness. The only way they can survive - as the film reminds us in a title-card taken from Tolstoy's novel - is to love life itself, and accept all that it can throw at us with equanimity. This might have seemed a rather optimistic message during the mid-Fifties, at a time when US-Soviet relations were lukewarm, to say the least, but it still holds sway today.

Vidor's film is extremely long, but sustains our attention throughout. Definitely worth watching if time and attention permit.

This film came out on DVD yesterday and I rushed to buy it. This version is the first to render all the detail and perfection of Jack Cardiff's amazing compositions and brilliant, varied photography. As a collection of memorable images, this film is better than any comparable historical epic of the period and even gives GWTW a run for its money. King Vidor's direction is a series of 'tableaux vivants' where the characters are not posing but acting in a very natural, period-specific way. I have never had a problem with this adaptation of Tolstoy's novel. I think it is a wonderful introduction to the period and the novel and that it is a very poetic, very original work in its own right. Henry Fonda's characterization is especially moving, including great memorable interactions with/reations to Mel Ferrer, Audrey Hepburn, Helmut Dantine and John Mills, but all members of the cast are actually perfect. The harrowing last 45 minutes of the film manage to convey a sense of history, a sense of grandeur as well as to communicate very clearly Tolstoy's ideas about the meaning of life, by relying mostly on the power of memorable images. The most conspicuous handicap of this movie, in my opinion, is its soundtrack (in glorious mono).

The barely hi-fi recording of dialogues and music sounds pinched, hollow and tinny and it always has in very version I have ever seen: in the theatres, on TV and on video. Even the soundtrack album is an atrocity. In some scenes, before the necessary adjustments of bass and treble, Audrey Hepburn's and Mel Ferrer's voices actually hurt your ear. Nino Rota's very Russian-sounding score is serviceable and melodic, although rather sparse in its orchestration and in the number of players. One can only wonder what 'War and Peace' could have sounded like with a cohort of Hollywood arrangers, decent recording facilities and lavish, varied orchestrations in true high fidelity and stereophonic sound. According to Lukas Kendall of 'Film Score Monthly', the original recording elements of the soundtrack have long ago disappeared, which is the common lot of international, independent co-productions of the era. Someone somewhere is certainly guilty of skimping on quality or embezzlement for this 1956 movie to sound so much worse than a 1939, pre-hi-fi epic like GWTW. Like all VistaVision films, this one was meant to be shown in Perspecta Stereophonic Sound where the mono dialog track was meant to be channelled to three different directions, making it directional, while the separate mono music + sound effects track was generally directed to all three speakers at the same time. The results fooled the viewers into thinking everything was in true stereo and the reproduction of the music was usually in very high fidelity. Maybe the soundtrack used on the DVD is a mono reduction of those two separate tracks that has squandered that fidelity and maybe the DVD can be issued again with better results in some kind of 4.0 presentation. When they do, very little electronic restoration work will be needed to make the image absolutely perfect.

But let's concentrate on the positive: This film is a summit of visual splendour and its sets, costumes, colour photography, composition and lighting achieve, in every single scene, wonders of artistry, creativity and delicacy that will probably never be equalled. Suffice it to say that it has, among many other treasures, a sunrise duel scene in the snow that still has viewers wondering whether it was shot outdoors or in a studio and that will have them wondering forever.

I just want to say that I only saw this film because of Audrey Hepburn and her great acting in this film shines, it was very weak in terms of editing and directing, it is true that this film is old, but if we want to compare it with the films of the same year, it is very weak Was.

It's not awful, just not very good and very little, I won't say nothing, really to do with Tolstoy's story and intentions. It gives some of the visual scope, but truncates the story so much as to remove so much of its core meaning. As a film it is very dated in style, even for 1956, though Vidor tries to depict some Tolstoy detailed locations, he does it mostly in a very wooden dry and uninteresting way. But what really is missing is the sense of tragic implications each character carries with them, how life's unexpected changes rolls over every single character, over some harder than others. There is nothing of Tolstoy's vision of morality. There are no happy endings really, some better than other resolutions, and Pierre in the book was nothing like Henry Fonda. ONLY Audrey Hepburn captures a good deal of Natasha's spirit, but the slow awful decline of the Rostovs is not dealt with, or Natasha's own mortification at being tricked by Anatole Kuragin. Prince Andrei was a trapped character in the book beautifully drawn out, done whereas as the outset he is set up almost as the 'hero' at first only for Tolstoy to tear him up and down. None of this is in the film - it really needs an 8 hours-long film. For Tolstoy, Pierre is closest to a moral centre of the book but as a kind bumbling easily-led ineffectual but well-meaning character, often (mostly) terribly deceived and while he ends up with Natasha only as she becomes his blowsy hausfrau. The film is good just to see how most directors can't deal with good literature.