“Anna Karenina,” Joe Wright’s adaptation of the classic and beloved Leo Tolstoy novel, is an intense spectacle that excels in visual splendor and mood, but feels overstuffed at times.
Kiera Knightley plays Anna, the adulterous protagonist and one of the most well-known characters in literature. Knightley has an incredible knack for emoting and expressing facially, particularly with the eyes, that is magnetic and gives Anna real vivacity.
Jude Law, who plays Anna’s older, state-official husband Karenin, is underwhelming. He excels comfortably in the role, but it seems that neither the script nor the film’s direction give him opportunities to truly shine. His serious dignity does well to balance the intensely, emotional performance from Knightley.
The supporting cast and costume design are the heart and soul of the film and the recreation of late 19th-century Russia is stunning — at times even breathtaking.
Of particular note is Matthew Macfadyen’s turn as Oblonsky, Anna’s civil servant, skirt-chasing brother. He steals every scene with his vibrant, cavalier bearing energy.
The film’s true success is in its attempt to bring to life the splendor and idiosyncrasies of the Russian social elite with their resplendent balls and decadent dinners.
There are multiple scenes involving dance, in which the choreography is eerie and flawless. Wright employs some techniques that are questionable narratives such as when Anna and Count Vronksy dance together and then the rest of the ball and its crowd literally disappear as they dance alone.
Rather than reproducing in vivid reality the world of Russia in the 1800s, Wright also elected to shoot most of the scenes and shots around a physical stage that would emit surreal effects.
The film at times feels like an epic ballet and a play at others. It’s tremendously beautiful, but it also feels like an artistic hodgepodge.
The intricate sets, gorgeous costumes and stunning images in the end tend to overshadow the story and the actors playing in it.
The film adapted existing source material that had been thoroughly redone for years and as a result, felt a need to break out of the mold in order to tell the story in a drastically new way.
Doing something stylistically radical is by no means objectionable, but along with that sort of effort comes some risks.
The film manages to be a stunning visual spectacle and balletic tour-de-force, but “Anna Karenina” falls prey to its own ambition by the end.
