Anna Karenina

On [Orange] Wednesday, I went to see Anna Karenina. I haven’t read the original Tolstoy novel, but I saw the trailer a while back and I’ve been looking forward to its release ever since. For all Keira Knightley irritates me sometimes, I liked her in Atonement and so I decided if she was under the direction of Joe Wright again, I should give her a chance to curb her pouting and concentrate on acting. When she does, I think she can be brilliant. Plus, more importantly, it looked as though the film was going to be visually spectacular and like nothing I’d ever seen before. Which is always good.

I wasn’t let down – the filming was pretty amazing. I don’t want to get into the realms of sounding really pretentious, but when you’ve spent the past two years studying Greek theatre modules in which the word ‘metatheatricality’ was used, on average, about seven times a lecture, it’s difficult not to think about the extraordinary use of sets. I’m not sure if ‘metatheatre’ is technically the right word as the film, being a film, isn’t a play…even though they do make it look like a play by shooting most of it in a dilapidated theatre. The point is, it constantly refers back to its status as a work of fiction. The sets are changed around right before your eyes, undermining the realism of the story. The movements are at times very dance-like and rehearsed and even the everyday process of putting on a coat is made into a ballet-style movement. And then there’s the all-important ‘viewer becoming the viewed’ thing. Or maybe it would be ‘viewed becoming the viewer, becoming the viewed’? I dunno. Basically, there comes a point where you’re watching Anna as she is watching an opera in a theatre, but then she becomes the object of gaze when the rest of the audience turn on her. It’s all very clever.

I also thought the costumes were pretty stunning, although Keira Knightley could wear a bin bag and make it look like couture Chanel. Poor Jude Law doesn’t come out of it looking so fresh – an epically receding hairline and drab clothing is not the best combination. It also seems that Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s blonde perm and dodgy tash was a good look in those days, but things change. To be fair, I was pleasantly surprised by his performance as Count Vronsky. I think he’s brilliant in Kick-Ass, but the most recent thing I saw him in was Chatroom – probably one of the worst films ever made. I suppose that’s not his fault, but by association he had gone down in my estimation. Now he’s redeemed himself again – he portrays his character with old-school charm and seems extremely mature and stately for his 22 years…I guess that goes with the territory of marrying a 45-year-old woman.

However, at the same time, I can’t help but resent his character for his part in Anna’s downfall. Yes, you can argue it was her own fault, and it was to an extent, but to be fair she did take some persuasion. She was reluctant to cheat on old baldy at first and when your husband shows basically no emotion it must be hard to ignore golden-haired man-gods who want a bit of hanky panky. Jude Law’s character, Karenin, is almost stoic in his attitudes – he’s described as a ‘saint’ and someone who, in his work as a statesman, is invaluable to Russia. He obviously has extremely high morals and respect for society’s rules, but he lacks passion and maybe this is what draws Anna to the Count. Even when he finds out about the affair, all Karenin can do is crack his knuckles and walk off - he hardly even seems angry. He’s a person who does the ‘right thing’ rather than following his heart, the total opposite of Anna.

So, Karenin gets all the sympathy and some would say rightly so. But spare a thought for Anna, basically shunned by society whilst Aaron Taylor-Johnson is allowed to swan off on his horse as if he wasn’t a part of the scandal. He is sensitive to her situation, but it’s not like he has Moaning Myrtle from Harry Potter popping up and having a massive go at him is it? Anna is the one who’s targeted. But I suppose that’s the whole point – to highlight the hypocrisy in attitudes at the time.

A theatre is a place of spectacle and of judgement. At the time, it was a place to watch drama, but also an opportunity to show your face in society, saying the right things and being seen with the right people. Performance was not solely limited to taking place on the stage, but was a part of the everyday life of the upper classes, and if you didn’t fit with the norms of this performance then you were shunned. I think that’s what Tolstoy highlighted in the novel, and Joe Wright brilliantly captured in his unique vision. I really enjoyed it and it's definitely worth a watch.