Oh goody, a sex scene; hey, it’s one of those where the bodies just sort of intermingle and we’re not quite sure what we’re looking at. Huh. Is that his ass or hers? Wait a sec. Is that his breast or hers? I really cannot tell. Oh, this is just sad.
Yes, that’s correct, in Anna Karenina there was a sex scene starring the title girl, relatively flat-chested Keira Knightley, and the pale, hairless Aaron Taylor-Johnson and I really couldn’t tell which body double was which. Feel free to attack my naïveté or misplaced idealism, but I think it’s high time we as a society stopped pushing the ideal of adults who resemble teen boys.
Having never read Anna Karenina, I was interested to learn the tale. I came away wondering if Leo Tolstoy resented rich society women … or secretly wanted to be one. This is my impression of Anna:
“I want a husband”
“I want a child”
“I want a grand house”
“I want fancy balls”
“I want a lover”
“I want a child by that lover”
“I want a second husband”
“I want another house”
“I want both my children”
“I want to keep my social status”
“I want my MTV ”
Before long, Anna Karenina was an exercise in watching a civil, adult, 19th Century Russian Veruca Salt go through life. There is no understanding or appreciation that eventually choices have to be made and compromise has to be reached. So you want a lover? Fine. Take one. Just don’t pretend you can keep the same s*** or the same role once your husband finds out. It’s kind of embarrassing. After an hour or so, it became excruciatingly difficult to root for this woman who hasn’t the slightest ability to choose among her passions. Look, babe, you can’t actually have it all. At some point, you have to understand you’ve reached your limit, even if you do look like Ke
ira Knightley. The fact is if this character didn’t have Keira Knightley’s looks or smile, she’d have been drummed out of any decent Russian household before you could say “rubles.”
The bearded Jude Law does almost everything from a sitting position in this film, kinda just waiting from the sidelines, fully realizing that while he is the offended husband, his name ain’t the title of the picture, so he kinda has to be passive. Vronsky (Taylor-Johnson), the young cavalry officer who loses/wins/loses/wins/wins/loses/wins Anna struck me as likeable enough when he wasn’t shooting his horse, but the best romantic scene actually came from side players Kitty (Alicia Vikander) and Levin (Domhnall Gleeson). The latter pair stages a very romantic game with toy blocks; imagine lovers playing Wheel of Fortune in 1874 and you get the idea.
Otherwise, the Anna Karenina highlights were difficult to come by. It’s a well shot film, very nice on screen, with a series of scene-changing quick cuts (someone looks out a parlor window, the camera pulls in and when it pulls back, the same character is now on a train). This coincides with a deliberately staged feel. I don’t mean here that it looks staged — the film sets continuously return to an actual stage. A field of willows and grass pans to reveal an orchestra pit, a housed argument pulls back to show floor lights and audience. It’s all very clever, cinematography-wise, but a death-knell to the illusion of reality. The one long-term reaction I had to being reminded I’m watching a play is “this isn’t real. It’s all an illusion, just like Anna’s selfishness and this elusive conflict the characters can’t seem to commit to.” Well, I can commit to a thumbs down.
Anna found it hard to choose
When every option always meant “lose”
Anything plus
Without any fuss
Is an offer she couldn’t refuse
Rated R, 129 Minutes
D: Joe Wright
W: Tom Stoppard
Genre: Lifestyles of the rich and famous, 19th C. edition
Type of person most likely to enjoy this film: Costume period drama suckers
Type of person least likely to enjoy this film: Cuckolds
Ooh! I’m finally the “type of person most likely to enjoy this film!”