In the early 2000’s, author Ray Bradbury implied that cinema is on it’s way out, citing ‘Moulin Rouge’ as an example of a film that flashes thousands of little colors and images at you every minute, one that is a juggernaut of style over what he argued as the more important substance. I really don’t think this matters though, because that’s the beauty of film- the flexibility, the uniqueness of it all. These past few years proved successful for auteurs of visual style, as evidenced by movies like The Master and The Tree of Life. These are movies that have little in the way of story, but more than make up with the pure beauty of their photography.
So here’s Anna Karenina. Directed by Joe Wright, the film has got to be one of the most visually immaculate films I have ever seen. There wasn’t a shot or ounce of detail that I didn’t find gorgeous, from a purely technical standpoint, it’s one of the best made films of all time. Seriously, I’ll say that. By the end of the film, the story had sagged a little bit, it was a bit unevenly paced, yet for once I’m willing to let that go and applaud it for it’s visual wholeness instead. Anna Karenina is based on the classic novel by Leo Tolstoy. It’s about Anna Karenina(Keira Knightley), an aristocrat in 19th Century Russia; a woman who has it all: a family, a fortune, an upper class life. Yet, at the sight of the young and handsome Count Vronsky(Aaron Johnson), decides that she wants more than she is given, a true source of love. See, her husband, Karenin(Jude Law) loves her, but he’s not quite in love with her. He married her for the sake of business, and cares for her, but does not give her the attention she truly desires. A love affair between the count and Karenina ensues, but not without trouble. It’s a love story, after all, and what’s a classic love story without a little passion and a lot of deception?
The film is very well acted, if not normal coming from the amount of talent involved. These are all parts that the actors could do in their sleep, especially from Knightley. They all do terrific jobs in their parts, especially Jude Law, who is more than interesting here as a sullen husband. We’re kind of used to seeing him be the handsome love interest in films, so seeing him in this kind of role is refreshing. Supporting roles from Domhall Gleeson and Matthew Mcfayden are equally as good, with the latter providing the comedic relief in the film(quite the opposite from his performance as Mr. Darcy in Pride and Prejudice, which was also directed by Wright).
The viewer may observe that the film is particularly theatrical, and that viewer would be absolutely correct. The film was almost entirely shot in an abandoned theater. This is where the visual beauty comes in. Sets are designed to perfection, some even changed mid scene – one scene in particular is jaw dropping in a technical respect, a whole set is changed as are costumes while the camera does a 360 degree spin around the room. A play director should eat this up. The sets, the lighting, the costumes, the cinematography are all perfect. It takes the percieved notion of how a period costume drama is made and takes it 12 steps further, and it actually succeeds beyond visual expectation.
Towards the end of the film, the story starts lacking in speed, and you slowly come to the realization that you’re not having an odd fever dream, rather you’re sitting in a movie theater, watching the experience come to an end. This is where most other reviewers and I separate in our views. Most would come to the consensus that while the film is indeed visually stunning, it lacks the story to get it moving. In a matter of words, it’s pretentious, it’s dramatic actors porn. They wouldn’t necessarily be wrong, it’s a totally valid argument. Yet at the same time, I would venture to say that I don’t even care. Bearing witness to one of the most technically beautiful films is more than enough. Most people don’t realize it, but Avatar sucked(writing-wise). Yet it was still lauded not for its story, but for its visual wonder. This is the argument I’m using here(not trying to say that this movie sucked or anything.). So while it’s not exactly my favorite film of the year or anything(right now, that’s going to a gritty, grimy NC-17 movie called Killer Joe), it’s still a movie that begs to be seen by anyone who can appreciate the spectacle of great art without needing to fully love the story. People studying film and/or photography might want to check this one out and form their own opinions about it. For me, while not the greatest movie in the world, it’s certainly a visual masterpiece.
Critics Rating(according to rottentomatoes.com): 61%
My Rating: 9/10
