Am I Willing to Stand Up for My Beliefs?

At some point in a person’s life they will have to ask themselves, “What do I believe?” and “Am I willing to stand up for my beliefs?” To believe something privately is one thing, but it is another thing to take a public stand regarding one’s belief, especially if there is a large element of risk involved once those beliefs are made known.

In 1905, Lev Tolstoy (1828-1910), author of such works as “War and Peace” and “Anna Karenina” wrote an editorial piece entitled “Bethink Yourselves” regarding the Russo-Japanese War. This piece was banned in Russia on the grounds that it was declared ‘unpatriotic’ by the Czar’s government; however, it was published in ‘The London Times’. As a public figure, he felt the need to speak out. He wrote, “"Again war. Again sufferings, necessary to nobody, utterly uncalled for; again fraud, again the universal stupefaction and brutalization of men "Men who are separated from each other by thousands of miles, hundreds of thousands of such men (on the one hand—Buddhists, whose law forbids the killing not only of men but of animals ; on the other hand—Christians, professing the law" of brotherhood and love), like wild beasts on land and on sea are seeking out each other in order to kill, torture, and mutilate each other in the most cruel way. What can this be? Is it a dream or a reality? Something is taking place which should not, cannot be; one longs to believe that it is a dream and to awake from it. But no, it is not a dream, it is a dreadful reality!"“ 1

The Russo-Japanese War was part of the backdrop of the 2017 film, “Anna Karenina: Vronsky’s Story” directed by Russian director Karen Shakhnazarov (b. 1952). Alexei Vronsky, Anna Karenina’s lover, is reflecting upon his relationship with Anna thirty years after Anna’s death at the Saint Petersburg train station. Vronsky and Anna’s relationship was largely a war between them (which did not end well), Vronsky spent the rest of his life running from one war to another after Anna died, and the Russo-Japanese War certainly was not a rousing success for the Russian government since the 1905 Revolution followed as a result.

Karen Shakhnazarov is aware of all of this; however, he still chose to publicly support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 by signing a letter to that effect. He is not alone in his support of the war, in fact, 511 artists signed a letter in 2014 supporting Russia’s invasion of Crimea and the Donbas Region of Ukraine. However, the questions still remain, “Why do I really believe?” and “Can I genuinely stand up for my beliefs?”

In 2005, Russian director Vladimir Bortko (b. 1946) directed a ten part mini-series for Russia-1, the premier government owned television station, entitled “The Master and Margarita” based upon the classic novel of the same name by author Mikhail Bulgakov (1891-1940).

This novel is filled with satire regarding the Soviet government of the 1930s. In fact, the publication of the novel was banned in the Soviet Union until it was published in serial form in 1966. Mikhail Bulgakov, a writer and medical doctor, had serious health issues and petitioned Joseph Stalin’s government for permission to move to Paris, France with the rest of his family in order to receive the medical attention he needed. This request was denied and Bulgakov ended up dying in Moscow at the age of 48.

The mini-series “The Master and Margarita” remained very faithful to Bulgakov’s novel since it was done over ten episodes and could go into much more depth than a 90 minute or so film in the movie theater.

Another extremely satiric piece about the Soviet Union by Mikhail Bulgakov was made into a television movie by Vladimir Bortko in 1988. The novella and film are entitled “Heart of a Dog”, the story of a stray dog who is transformed into a man by a surgeon simply to see if it is possible to transform a dog by implanting human testes and a pituitary gland into a dog. The dog, who is given the name Poligraf Poligrafovich Sharikov, after becoming human, appears to be representative of the most base attitudes of Soviet society in the 1920s. This novella was written in 1925, but not officially released in the Soviet Union until 1987.

Vladimir Bortko knew what this novel and novella were about. He saw how they satirized the dictatorial Russian government of their day; however, he still chose to sign the letter in support of Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea and the Donbas Region. From where is this disconnect coming? These are not the actions of the Master, but of Berlioz, the head of Massolit, who published only those pieces which the government found acceptable.

Speaking out against the government, especially one which encourages imprisoning opponents, is a risky undertaking. Actress Liya Akhedzhakova (b. 1938), who starred In such films as “Office Romance” and “The Irony of Fate” is an outspoken critic of contemporary Russian culture and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. In April 2023. Russian- and English-language independent news website, Meduza, reported that Vitaly Borodin, head of the Federal Security and Anti-Corruption Project, is asking Russia’s Prosecutor General to launch a criminal case against Akhedzhakova. He claims, Akhedzhakova has criticized “the state organs’ and the president’s decisions and policies with regard to the war by Russia in Ukraine. Akhedzhakova denies the allegations. This is tantamount to being declared a ‘foreign agent’, as what done in the Soviet Union during the time of Joseph Stalin.

Silence does not automatically imply consent. There are many artists who never signed any letter in support of war and who never made their personal feelings known. However, to produce such works based upon “Anna Karenina” using war as backdrop or the writings of Mikhail Bulgakov and then stand in support of the actions of a dictatorial government seems extremely hypocritical. It seems as though the same level of fear present during the time of Joseph Stalin is still alive in Russia today. Who would imagine that a well known Russian citizen would be declared a “foreign agent” in 2022 for expressing his opinion regarding an act undertaken by his government?

End Note

1. “Tolstoy on the Russo-Japanese War”: https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1827&context=ocj

War and No Peace: Anna and Vronsky

 From 1927 until 2014 there have been several adaptations of Lev Tolstoy's novel, “Anna Karenina” presented on the silver screen. In each case the story is presented exclusively from Anna's standpoint; however, the 2017 Russian film, “Anna Karenina: Vronsky's Story” was something different.

The director, Karen Shakhnazarov (b. 1952), introduced us to this timeless classic from the standpoint of Anna's lover, Alexei Vronsky. The film begins with the audience meeting Vronsky in a medical field hospital in Manchuria, China in 1904, thirty years after Anna's death, where Vronsky is a patient. He is being interviewed by Anna's son, Sergei, from her marriage to Alexei Karenin. Sergei is a medical doctor and director of his hospital. He has few memories of his mother and wants to know from Vronsky what she was like and what type of relationship they had. Vronsky tells Sergei the story about how he met Anna and what impact their relationship had on Anna's social standing in Saint Petersburg society as a result.

In many of the film adaptations, Anna's husband, who is twenty years old than her, is presented as a mean spirited, almost spiteful, man who uses their son as a weapon to torture Anna by denying her the right to see Sergei. In this film, Alexei Karenin, a government ministry official in Czarist Russia, is presented a caring husband who is obsessed with order and maintaining a proper public appearance, while, at the same time, not forgetting that he is a Orthodox Christian. His wife's betrayal with Vronsky is painful and, initially, he even begins to hate her and wishes that she would die while giving birth to Vronsky's child; however, he eventually forgives both of them and tries to return to some semblance of a 'normal' life. However, he is actually quite conflicted. He states that he forgave both of them; however, his actions indicate otherwise. It is suggested to him, more than once, that he should grant Anna a divorce and let her move on with her life with Vronsky; however, he refuses to respond to her letters when she rights to him with such a request. Karenin is approached a final time about granting Anna a divorce and he promises a response; however, she takes her own life before any response is given.

Vronsky is presented as a handsome career military officer who is more concerned with his social standing and career advancement than his relationship with Anna. His mother, Countess Vronskaya, is eager to marry him off to one young woman or another; however, she is opposed to his relationship to Anna based upon the negative impact it will have on his military career advancement. According to the novel, Vronsky had been engaged to Anna's niece, Kitty Oblonskaya; however there is no mention of that relationship in this film. He presents himself throughout his various conversations with Anna's son as a loving, career, compassionate partner who was willing to give up everything for Anna; however, his actions did not align with his words.

At one point, Anna decided to go to the opera is Saint Petersburg. Vronsky discouraged her from going several times stating she did not need to prove anything; however, she decided to go anyway. Upon her arrival, one of female patrons in a neighboring box, the wife of a military officer, made a public announcement that she cannot sit in the same theater with a woman like Anna walked out of the box for the evening. The men at the theater were rather cordial; however, the women despised her. Vronsky initially stated that he did not want to go to the opera; however, he eventually changed his mind and, following intermission, Anna returned to her seat. Vronsky arrived just prior to the end of intermission and refused to sit with her our of concern for what the other patrons might think and/or say. This betrayal was the beginning of the end for Anna.

Anna's son asked Vronsky if he truly loved Anna. He responded that he had strong feelings for her and even attempted suicide after Anna nearly died following the birth of their daughter. However, Sergei asked the same question a second time since he did not receive a direct answer. The next time the question was asked Vronsky changed the subject and started talking about a clay pipe which he had recently purchased. His inability to affirmatively answer this question spoke volumes about his feelings regarding Anna.

Anna was portrayed as a woman in a loveless marriage to a much older man who believed that she had finally found happiness with a dashing young military officer. She willingly sacrificed everything for this relationship, including any contact with her son. She was treated like an outcast by Saint Petersburg society and was even willing to accept this indignity as long as she had Vronsky's love and support to rely upon. However, she was, in fact, treated like a bird in a gilded cage. Vronsky's home in Saint Petersburg and summer home in a village near the city were almost like palaces; however, they were still cages to Anna. He would be gone for several days at a time and she had no outlets for communication or creativity, so she was left alone with her thoughts and this drove her to the point of madness. When she expressed this to Vronsky he tried to say something which would appear supportive; however, he would simply disappear again to Saint Petersburg or elsewhere since he had no issues regarding social standing and wanted to make sure that was being seen by all of the right people.

Vronsky appeared to believe that once a divorce was granted by Karenin and he could finally marry Anna that everything would be fine and they could simply begin their life together in society as if nothing had happened previously. However, Anna began to realize, over time, that Vronsky really did not need her and that the heartache from her sacrifice amounted to nothing in regard to their relationship. Even she had married Vronsky, nothing would change. She became convinced that he really does not love her, so why marry him? Prior to Anna's demise she got into an argument with Vronsky and he left their home. Anna sent a message to him asking that he return as quickly as possible; however, her servant returned with the unread message. She was told that Vronsky went to visit his mother, even though he had already received money from her, and Anna became convinced that he had gone their to meet one of the young women that his mother was trying to get him to marry.

At this point Anna is hopeless and decides to head to the train station where she will ultimately take her own life. The audience never sees what took place at the station; however, the music and speed of the carriage on its way to the station portray the strong sense of desperation which Anna was feeling at that moment. Earlier she had stated that if she died that Vronsky would be stuck with only her memory and this would torture him for the rest of his life. Her words were proven to be true and Vronsky chose not to leave the army hospital even after it was being attacked by the Japanese army because of strong feeling that Anna was “always with him”.  The audience returns to the same train station at the end of film to watch a young Alexei Vronsky walk into the smoke and disappear as though he was walking into the light of Heaven.

The director chose to combine the publicist story "During the Japanese War" and the literary cycle "Stories about the Japanese War" by Vikenty Veresaev (1867-1945). This gave a context for why Vronsky had re-entered the military after so many years and it also provided a reflective atmosphere for the film since the film is constantly switching between Vronsky's time with Anna and his time in the Russo-Japanese War.  Most of the novel of "Anna Karenina" is about a war between either Anna and her husband or Anna and Vronsky.  In fact, at one point Anna states in the film that she wanted to obtain 'victory' in regard to her relationship with Vronsky.  This is not a word traditionally used to describe a loving relationship.

If Vronsky was expecting Anna to be a 'trophy wife', it is easy to understand why he was frustrated in regard to their relationship. A trophy wife is a pejorative term meaning a wife who is regarded as a status symbol for her husband. The term usually refers to a woman who is younger than her husband; however, Vronsky is actually three years younger than Anna according to the novel. It goes against Anna's character to simply be someone whom he could take to parties and engage in polite conversation, but had no real interests and nothing of any substance to contribution to any conversation.

There have been approximately thirty different adaptations of “Anna Karenina” on the silver screen produced by various countries including Russia, the United States, Great Britain, India, and Argentina; however, “Anna Karenina: Vronsky's Story” was something unique because of the fact that it was told from Vronsky's point of view thirty years after Anna's death at the train station. It is likely there will be other adaptations in the future and, perhaps, one of them might present this story from the viewpoint of Sergei Karenin, Anna's son, or her husband, Alexei. These adaptations might also help to give fresh insight into this timeless classic.

Lev Tolstoy Goes to Hollywood

   Few people have had the impact on Russian literature that Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (1828-1910) has had.  His novels and short stories have been translated into numerous languages and people from various cultures are familiar with these stories.  Three of his stories including Anna Karenina, one of the greatest novels ever written, The Kreutzer Sonata, and Two Hussars were even made into American films.  These three films were all produced by British producer Bernard Rose (b. 1960). His adaptation of Anna Karenina was certainly not the only one produced for an English speaking audience, but it was certainly one of the best adaptations. 

    In this article I will look at these three films, namely “Anna Karenina” (1997), “The Kreutzer Sonata” (2008), and “Two Jacks” (2011).  I will examine these three films in order to see how faithful they are to the novels themselves and how well they correspond with one another. 

    The 1997 film “Anna Karenina” which stars Sophie Marceau (b. 1966) in the title role, is a very interesting adaption of Tolstoy’s novel.  It was obvious that Rose had borrowed several ideas from the 1948 film with Vivien Leigh, but he also added some new elements which were not present in the earlier films.  For example, the story, in this film, is told by Lev Tolstoy through the character of Constantine Levin.  However, some of the elements of the earlier films about this novel, such as the difficulties between Stepan and Dolly at the beginning of the film, are not present. 

    Sir Georg Solti’s (1912-1997) choice of music also had a profound impact on the film.  Pyotr Illyich Tchaikovsky’s (1840-1893) Sixth Symphony, which he wrote prior to his own death, the choice of Tatiana’s aria from the opera “Evgeny Onegin”, and the music of Sergei Rachmaninoff (1873-1943) helped to tell the story, even without words. For some reason, Sir George did not list this film among the films he is credited with serving as music director for.¹  
    Eleven years later, Bernard Rose decided to produce a modern film version of The Kreutzer Sonata. This novella is believed, by some, to be Tolstoy’s argument in favor of sexual abstinence and against marriage.² It also deals with the question of whether or not true love is possible.³  

     This film was a very interesting 21^st century “American” approach to a 19^th century Russian novella.  Set in Los Angeles, California, this film remains quite faithful to the story line of the novel; however, it can be seen as extremely pornographic, especially if one of the original themes of Tolstoy’s novella was the virtue of sexual abstinence.⁴  

     I have no objection to nudity in a film if it is used for artistic reasons, such as to enhance the storyline; however in this film the constant nudity almost became the storyline. 

     It is unfortunate that modern American films must contain graphic nudity, excessive killings, and/or massive explosions; otherwise they will not do well at the box office.  Some people will argue this is not true and point to the 2012 film version of “Anna Karenina” as an example. However, that film won an Academy Award for “Best Costume Design”, not for “Best Picture”.  Hollywood markets films in the same way cigarettes are marketed according to the late great Russian film director Andrei Tarkovsky (1932-1986) ⁵ What Tarkovsky said in the 1980s is even more true today.

     The third film is “Two Jacks” a 2011 film based upon an 1856 short story entitled Two Hussars by Tolstoy. ⁶   There was also a 1984 Soviet film entitled “Two Hussars” which was also based upon this short story.⁷  In the original story the reader is meant to understand that the son is not only a different generation than his father, but that this later generation has actually become worse.  This insight was made quite clear in Bernard Rose’s 2011 film; however, it was not as clear in the 1984 Soviet film. 

      In the 1984 film the father and son were both played by the same actor (with an implied time lapse in the film) and it was difficult to understand why the son was less likeable than the father.  However, this was more obvious in the 2011 film. 

      Danny Huston (b. 1962) plays “Jack, Sr.” and his nephew Jack Huston (b. 1982) plays “Jack, Jr.” and it is somewhat easy to see why Jack, Sr. was a much more likeable character than Jack, Jr.  The movie begins with the audience being introduced to Jack, Sr. at the airport and the film ends with Jack, Jr. at the same airport (in the same terminal) twenty years later. 

    This was the third time that Rose included Danny Huston in one of his films. In addition to playing Jack, Sr. in this film, Huston also played Stepan, Anna Karenina’s brother, in the 1997 film and he played the main character in “The Kreutzer Sonata”.  It would appear that Bernard Rose is quite impressed with Danny Huston’s acting ability. 

     Each of these films remained quite faithful to the novel or short story they were based upon.  These three stories explore very important issues which are still as relevant today as they were when they were written in the 19^th century. With the current divorce rate at over 50%, many young people ask themselves if true love is really possible. 

    In Ezekiel 18 it is written, “The father eats green grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge.”  What the prophet Ezekiel is saying that the actions of the parents have a direct impact on their children.  Another phrase we often heard used is “The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree”.  Based upon “Two Jacks”, both the quote by the Prophet Ezekiel and the apple are still quite true.  Lev Tolstoy was a deeply religious man and he may very well have had the Bible quote from Ezekiel 18 in mind when he wrote Two Hussars.

      Bernard Rose showed us that the same personalities which could be found in Anna Karenina, The Kreutzer Sonata, and Two Hussars are still very much alive today.   This is a hallmark of classic literature and it is wonderful that this producer was able to introduce these stories by Lev Tolstoy to an audience who may have been familiar with only Anna Karenina and War and Peace.    

                                                          End Notes

1)    “Anna Karenina: A Cinematic Journey on the Silver Screen from 1927 to 2012” http://heideggerm1.blogspot.com/2013/03/anna-karenina-cinematic-journey-on.html 

2)    “The Kreutzer Sonata” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kreutzer_Sonata  

3)    “The Possibility of True Love” http://heideggerm1.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-possibility-of-true-love.html  

4)    “The Kreutzer Sonata (2008 film)” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kreutzer_Sonata_(2008_film)  

5)    “Andrei Tarkovsky: A Poet in the Cinema (1983)” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTvIybrtMqU (47:55)

6)    “Two Hussars” http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Two_Hussars

7)    “Two Hussars (Russian Film)” http://rusact.com/movie-opinion-10792-Dva-Gusara-Two-Hussars-Velikolepnaya-Klassika  

Film Adaptations of Classic Russian Novels

  There has been a long history of adapting classic Russian novels to film in the English speaking world.  These classic novels by authors like Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Pasternak, and others allow an English speaking audience to enter into a world with which they are completely unfamiliar and see that the issues which these people face are dealt with all over the world. 

   In this article I will look at the 1935 American film adaptation of “Crime and Punishment” by Fyodor Dostoevsky, the 1956 film “War and Peace”, “Brothers Karamazov” (1958), the 1965 film “Doctor Zhivago”, and the 2002 BBC adaptation of “Crime and Punishment”.  I will examine several films and television series about classic Russian novels in order to see how faithful they are to the novels themselves and how well they correspond with one another. 

  Joseph von Sternberg (1894-1969) directed “Crime and Punishment”¹, a 1935 film based upon the novel of the same name by Fyodor Dostoevsky. This film starred Peter Lorre in the title role as Rodin Raskolnikov (his first name was changed to Roderick for an American audience).  This film bore little, if any resemblance, to the novel.  In fact, the director was so disappointed with this film that he does not list it among the films he is credited with directing.         

    What was America’s fascination with classic Russian literature that in a span of two years, from 1956 to 1958, both War and Peace by Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (1828-1910) and “Brothers Karamazov” by Fyodor Mikhaylovich Dostoevsky (1821-1881) were made into films?  The American people would have known very little about Russia in 1956.  Both countries were in the middle of the Cold War and there was a great deal of propaganda on both sides regarding how horrible the other country was.

    The 1956 film “War and Peace”² starred Henry Fonda as Pierre Bezuhov and Audrey Hepburn as Natasha Rostova (the two main characters).  This film does not cover every aspect of Tolstoy’s original novel, but focuses on the relationship of three of the main characters.  Very early in the film there is a scene where Pierre is getting drunk with a group of friends.  This scene contains every almost every possible Russian stereotype, except for a dancing bear.  At one point in the scene one of the characters is standing backward on the window ledge and facing inside the room.  He begins to bend over backward while drinking a bottle of vodka.  Apparently, the winner was the person who could finish drinking the vodka without falling out of the window.  Other than feeding into a Russian stereotype, what was the point of this “game”?  This scene is not in the novel; however, the director, King Vidor (1894-1982) felt it necessary to put it in the movie.

    The costumes are wonderful.  In typical Hollywood style of the time, the film makes everything appear almost larger than life by virtue of the camera angles.  This film has a wonderful cast of actors, but financially it was unsuccessful.  It earned only $250,000 for the studio. A large part of the reason might have been that this was an epic film about a Russian novel.  Americans did not normally watch epic films, particularly those about Russian novels.

     It is not that Americans were opposed to epic films.  In the same year that “War and Peace” was completed, Cecil B. DeMille completed “The Ten Commandments” for a different studio.  “The Ten Commandments” is also an epic film, but the story of Moses would have been much better known by an American audience. 

     Two years after the completion of “War and Peace”, Richard Brooks (1912-1992) directed “Brothers Karamazov”³.  This movie is based upon a novel of the same name by Fyodor Dostoevsky.  The novel tells the story of three brothers (Dmitry, Alexei, and Ivan) and their relationship with each other and their father, Fyodor.  It is also a “murder mystery” since Fyodor is killed and the reader must determine who committed the murder.

     Fyodor Karamazov (played by Lee J. Cobb) is not a very likeable figure.  In the one of the first scenes in the film, the audience is introduced to Fyodor Karamazov after he has tied a woman to his bed and is interrupted because his son, Alexei (film debut for William Shatner) has arrived at his home.  Fyodor is a rather boorish man who seems to respect Alexei only. 

      In the novel, Dmitry Karamazov sees himself as being a rather foolish person and his actions reflect his belief about himself.  In the movie, Dmitry (played by Yul Brenner) comes across as a rather self-confident, if not arrogant, person.  He constantly borrows money from his father and this has become a source of tension between the two of them since Dmitry never paid back what he borrowed. 

     Another character is Smerdyakov, half-brother to the Karamazov brothers and son of Fyodor.  Smerdyakov is treated very poorly by Fyodor Karamazov in the film.  Dmitry is accused of murdering Fyodor; however, Smerdyakov confesses to Ivan Karamazov (played by Richard Basehart) that he killed Fyodor. Dmitry is put on trial for murder, but, instead of Smerdyakov confessing in court that he killed Fyodor, he kills himself. 

     In both the novel and film, Dmitry is convicted of murdering his father.  However, in the novel he accepts his fate and considers himself to be a martyr for love.  After being convicted of murder, Dmitry is sent to prison in Siberia and the woman he loved went to be with him in Siberia.

     The film shows Dmitry deciding to escape rather than board a train bound for Siberia.  He became a fugitive and the rest of the film deals with the topic: “Will Dmitry escape from Russia?”  What was the reason why Richard Brooks decided to add this into the film when it was not in the novel?  We do not know.  It is possible he did so because of the lack of justice in Dmitry’s conviction.  He was wrongfully convicted and should be able to escape rather than going to prison.  The movie ends without the audience knowing if he ever escaped from Russia. 

    It is also interesting that Yul Brenner is the only person in this film who had any connection to Russia.  He was born in Russia, but lived most of his life in either the US or Western Europe. 

    Another Western adaptation of a classic Russian novel was the 1965 film “Doctor Zhivago”⁴ starring Omar Sharif as Yuri Zhivago.  This film was based upon the novel of the same name by well-known poet, Boris Pasternak (1890-1960)⁵.  This novel was first published in Milan in 1957. Pasternak won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1958 for Doctor Zhivago, but was forbidden to attend the award ceremony by the Soviet government of Nikita Khrushchev. 

    This film continues to be extremely popular.  Like “War and Peace” this was an epic film, but it was much more acceptable to an American audience.  Perhaps it was simply the period of history when this film was made or the strong love story plot of the film, but it earned over $100,000,000 for its studio.  In the US, the success of a film is based largely upon the amount of money that the film earned rather than the depth of the subject matter. 

     Pasternak depicts Lara as an almost unscrupulous woman who uses her sexuality to obtain what she wants from life, but in the film David Lean (1908-1991), the director, presents Lara (portrayed by Julie Christie) as more of a victim.  In the 2006 Russian TV series “Doctor Zhivago”, Lara is not a very likeable character.   

     Since this film was released in 1965 and the US was still involved in the Cold War with the USSR, David Lean did not spend as much time focusing on the events of the Russian revolution as Pasternak did.   The love story between Yuri and Lara is what made this film successful along with the beauty of the Russian scenery which an American audience would never have seen in person.

      A very good English speaking adaptation of a classic Russian novel was the 2002 TV mini-series “Crime and Punishment” produced by the British Broadcasting Company (BBC). This series was extremely faithful to the novel.  The BBC felt no obligation to change the story line in order to adapt this novel to television.  This is much easier to do with a mini-series since it continues over several episodes instead of a film which only lasts for a few hours, at most. 

    Since I wrote about the various adaptations of Anna Karenina by Lev Tolstoy (1828-1910) in another article⁶, I have decided to forego writing about it here.  One important fact to remember is that no other novel has had more film adaptations made about it than Anna Karenina. 

    Attempting to turn a novel into a film while, at the same time, remaining faithful to the original novel is not an easy process; however, this is very important. Poetic license does allow for some changes, but how many changes can be made before a movie is no longer connected with a particular novel?  I once heard it said, “Never judge a book by its movie”⁷ and there is a great deal of truth in that statement.

                                                          End Notes

1)    “Crime and Punishment: (1935 American Film)” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_and_Punishment_(1935_American_film) 

2)    “War and Peace (1956 film)” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_and_Peace_(1956_film)

3)    “The Brothers Karamazov (1958 film)” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brothers_Karamazov_(1958_film)

4)    “Doctor Zhivago (film)” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Zhivago_(film)

5)    “Boris Pasternak” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Pasternak

6)    “Anna Karenina: A Cinematic Journey on the Silver Screen from 1927 to 2012” http://heideggerm1.blogspot.com/2013/03/anna-karenina-cinematic-journey-on.html  

7)    Quote by J. W. Eagan: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-11-17/features/9611170349_1_thomas-campion-faults-bear

 

 

  

Anna Karenina: A Cinematic Journey on the Silver Screen from 1927 to 2012

  "All happy families resemble one another, each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." "Все счастливые семьи похожи друг на друга, каждая несчастная семья несчастна по-своему."¹ It is with this quote that Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (1828-1910) began what is considered, by many, to be his most famous novel, Anna Karenina.

   Based upon the number of film adaptations which this novel has undergone, it would appear that this novel is a favorite among filmmakers as well.  The first Pathé version appeared in 1911² (just one year after Tolstoy’s death) and the most recent one made by Joe Wright in 2012. ³ Meanwhile, numerous other versions were produced: two films starring Greta Garbo (1905-1990)⁴, the silent film Love (1927), and Clarence Brown’s Anna Karenina (1935); two versions starring British actresses, the 1947 version with Vivien Leigh and the television production of 1985 with Jacqueline Bisset ; five Russian adaptations, including two silent films (one by Vladimir Gardin, starring Vera Vasilyevna Kholodnaya in 1914), the filmed performance at the Malyi Theatre, with Alla Tarasova as Anna in 1953, Aleksander Zarkhi’s Anna Karenina (1967), with Tatiana Yevgenyevna Samoilova and the creatively interesting hybrid of 1974: the film ballet with Maya Mikhaylovna Plisetskaya (b. 1924) ⁵

    In this article I will examine how Anna is presented in these various films by comparing the films of 1935, 1948, 1967, and 2012 in terms of how closely these various plots correspond to one another and to the original text of the novel.   

    When examining the various ways in which Anna Karenina has been interpreted in film it is important to keep in mind the country which the director is from.  In the 1927 and 1935 films, the directors were from the United States. There would have been very little known about life in Russia in the United States in either 1927 or 1935, so these directors were interpreting Anna as an American woman living in Russia.

     It may not have been their intention to interpret her as an American woman, but that was the result of the film.  For example, in the 1935 film, Greta Garbo comes across as a very strong minded, independent woman.  She is driven to despair by her husband who tells their son, Sergei, that his mother is dead and refuses to allow Anna to see him. 

     Fredric March (1897-1975), who played Count Vronsky, was initially a very supportive character, but soon had a great deal of difficulty understanding Anna’s mood swings and became eager to return to his comrades who were on their way to war. 

    It was somewhat surprising, and a bit strange, to hear the chorus “Glory, Glory to you, holy Rus'!” played after Anna’s tragic death in the 1935 film.  What point was the director attempting to make by choosing that song?  Was he attempting to show that life continued on in Russia even though Anna was gone or that Vronsky was beginning his new life without Anna?  Suicide is not understood as a heroic act, especially to an American audience, so this choice of music was certainly not meant to glorify Anna’s suicide as some sort of heroic act for her country.   This chorus was originally presented in the opera, A Life for the Tsar, by Mikhail Ivanovich Glinka (1804-1857) about Ivan Susanin who gave up his own life to save Czar Mikhail Romanov from the Polish Army in 1613.⁶

       In fact, this music only appears at the end of the 1935 film.  There is no triumphant music at the end of any other film version of “Anna Karenina”.  This can certainly lead one to believe that this music was chosen for a very specific purpose, but I have not been able to locate any information about such a purpose.  Was this music meant to indicate that Anna had given her life for the glory of Russia?   We do not know.  Neither Clarence Brown (1890-1987), the film director nor Herbert Stothart (1885-1949) spoke about why this music was chosen at the end of the film.

     The 1948 film was produced in England and, not surprisingly, Anna and the other characters in the film come across as very British.  Throughout the film, Anna comes across as almost emotionless.  Kieron Moore (1924-2007), who plays Count Vronsky, does not give the impression that he does not love Anna, but neither does he give the audience the impression that she can turn to him for any kind of emotional support. 

    Throughout the film it was very easy to ask the question, “How will the director show us why Anna kills herself?”  Vivien Leigh (1913-1967), who played Anna, came across as a rather logical woman with a “stiff upper lip”.  She showed very little emotion, even when she calls her husband to her bedside and announces that she could die at any moment. 

    However, everything changes after the scene where Anna appears at the opera theater by herself.  Anna sees Count Vronsky sitting with his mother and a young woman in his mother’s theater box.  Anna is being accosted by those around her and Vronsky is nowhere to be found.  Then, as she is preparing to leave, Vronsky shows up.

    Later, Vronsky and Anna leave St. Petersburg and go to Italy.  While in Italy, he receives a telegram from his mother who asks him to return home.  Vronsky is emotionally distant at this point.  Anna has become convinced that Vronsky does not love her and that his mother is trying to arrange a marriage between Vronsky and the young woman from the opera theater.  However, Instead of saying or doing something to assuage Anna’s fears, Vronsky leaves her a very emotionless note that he had returned to St. Petersburg and would be back in two days. 

    At this point, Anna believes that all hope is lost.  She can no longer see her child, her marriage is over, and her lover now loves another woman.  It is all very logical.  She boards a train for St. Petersburg and when the train stops at a certain station, Anna leaves the train to get some air.  She begins to reflect upon her life while standing on the train tracks and we see her get run over by the train.  She does not utter a sound prior to being struck by the train.

    The 1967 film is understood, by many, as the finest film adaptation of Anna Karenina because the film is produced in the Soviet Union and is in Russian. It is quite true that Tatiana Yevgenyevna Samoilova (b. 1934), who plays Anna, is a very different personality than either Garbo or Leigh.   However, does that necessarily mean that her portrayal of Anna was the most accurate according to the novel?   Anna’s character is certainly much more emotional than the character portrayed by Vivien Leigh, but there are times when this character is almost at the point of hysterics in the 1967 film. 

     One of the first things that must be acknowledged is that the film’s primary goal was to shoot the stars, not the novel. This approach inevitably affected the structure of the film. In all of these films, the novel is reduced to the Anna-Vronsky connection. Karenin plays a largely subsidiary role.  It appears that his only purpose is making his wife’s love story romantically doomed.⁷

     In the 1935 film, Alexei Karenin is played by Basil Rathbone (1892-1967), who later became famous playing Sherlock Holmes in a series of films.  Karenin came across as a very strict man who cared only about public appearances.  He was very heavily influenced by rules of social etiquette and seemed to care very little about Anna’s feelings.  After Anna told him that she loved Vronsky, Karenin not only told Anna that he would never grant her a divorce, but that she was forbidden to ever see their son, Sergei, again.  This was too much for Anna to accept. It was very easy to dislike this character and understand why Anna fell in love with Vronsky.  

   Ralph Richardson, a British actor, played Karenin in the 1947 film and he was likewise more concerned about social etiquette than Anna’s feelings.  This character was not as harsh as Rathbone’s character, but it was also easy to dislike him.  What we often fail to take into consideration is that Karenin had every right to respond the way that he did.  If Vronsky were a female, he would be referred to as a “home wrecker”, but since he is a man this is simply seen as a love story between a dashing military man and a wealthy housewife whose husband does not understand her. 

    In the 1967 film, the character of Karenin is portrayed by Nikolai Gritsenko and this character was also rather unlikeable.  He also refuses to grant Anna a divorce, but when Anna sends him a message that she is dying, Karenin actually forgives Anna and has a rather understanding conversation with Vronsky outside of Anna’s bedroom. 

    This portrayal of Karenin as a rather nasty, angry man is not in keeping with the novel; however, such a film portrayal appears necessary if the director wants the audience to sympathize with the main character.  The fact is that in the novel Karenin does not come across as a difficult man at all.  He does make an issue about the divorce; however, it is important to keep in mind that in Russia in the 1870s, a decree of divorce was only granted by the czar and if the family was wealthy it was done for very specific reasons. 

    That is why during the conversation between Karenin and the lawyer there is so much time spent talking about Karenin having evidence to prove Anna’s infidelity.  Such evidence could be seen as a legitimate reason for divorce, but the other problem was the possibility of public scandal.   The issue of scandal is mentioned in the various film versions, but there is no discussion about the difficulty of obtaining a divorce.⁸ 

     The 1997 film “Anna Karenina” which was produced by Bernard Rose (b. 1960) and stars Sophie Marceau (b. 1966) in the title role, is a very interesting adaption of Tolstoy’s novel.  It was obvious that Rose had borrowed several ideas from the 1948 film with Vivien Leigh, but he also added some new elements which were not present in the earlier films.  For example, the story, in this film, is told by Lev Tolstoy through the character of Constantine Levin. 

     Some of the elements of the earlier films, such as the difficulties between Stepan and Dolly at the beginning of the film, are not present.  It appears that Bernard Rose is quite familiar with classic Russian literature given the fact that he directed at least two other films based upon Tolstoy’s stories, including a film entitled “Kreutzer Sonata”.  

     Sir Georg Solti’s (1912-1997) choice of music also had a profound impact on the film.  Pyotr Illyich Tchaikovsky’s (1840-1893) Sixth Symphony, which he wrote prior to his own death, the choice of Tatiana’s aria from the opera “Evgeny Onegin”, and the music of Sergei Rachmaninoff (1873-1943) helped to tell the story, even without words. 

     After seeing the 1997 film, the 2012 British film by Joe Wright (b. 1972) does not even appear to be based upon the same novel.  It is true that this film won an Academy Award for “Best Costume Design”, but in regard to the story of Anna Karenina it was more of a spoof than a remake of the novel. 

     It is true that Keira Knightley (b. 1985) is a very attractive woman, but this is not Anna Karenina.  Her character is one dimensional.  She seems to almost take delight in making the life of her sainted husband, played by Jude Law (b. 1972), miserable. Aaron-Taylor Johnson (b. 1990), who played Vronsky, actually came across as more of a spoiled rich child than an officer in the Czar’s guard.  He was rather devoted to Anna as the two of them were destroying Anna’s marriage, but he quickly became rather indifferent to her.   This was very obvious in the scene where Anna is confronted by people at the opera theater and Vronsky offers her no support at all. 

    Jude Law’s character came across as a saint.  I began to ask myself, “How could any woman be so stupid as to leave this man for Vronsky?”  Not only was Alexei Karenin not mean-spirited, but at the end of the film he is seen raising the child that Anna and Vronsky had while she was still married to Karenin.  There is no mention of this anywhere in the novel and I am not quite sure why Joe Wright felt the need to add that into the film. 

      I do understand that poetic license comes into play when making a movie, but it is still important that the director remain as faithful as possible to the novel, unless, of course, he begins by stating that the film is “based upon Anna Karenina”, which means that this film will bear only a slight resemblance to the film. 

    The audience for each film is also introduced to the characters of Stepan, Dolly, Kitty, and Constantine Levin.  Stepan and Dolly are there simply as a way of introducing us to Anna since Stepan, Anna’s brother, picks Anna up at the train station in Moscow very early on in the film.   Kitty is introduced to us because she is a rival love interest of Vronsky, but that fades quickly after Vronsky meets Anna. 

     In almost all of the films, except for the 1997 version, Constantine Levin is a rather one dimensional character.  He appears very rarely in the films and the audience has no indication that in the novel he plays a very major role as a personality contrast to Anna.  In fact, Anna Karenina is actually a novel about two major figures, Anna and Levin. The novel does not end with the death of Anna, but each film ends with her dying at the train station, either by falling in front of or being hit by a train.  

    Instead of seeing the contrast between the failed marriage of Karenin and Anna and the loving conversion experience undergone by Constantine Levin, the audience is simply left to believe that Anna was a wealthy misunderstood housewife who had a romantic fling with a dashing young military man, but finally killed herself when she realized what she had actually given up. 

     This overly simplistic explanation of the story of Anna Karenina does a tremendous disservice to both the novel and its author.  It has been said that Anna Karenina may have been an autobiographical novel by Tolstoy.  He had many personal difficulties in his marriage, including being accused by his wife, Sophia, of being a homosexual (even though he fathered thirteen children).⁹  

     Based upon this view that Tolstoy is like Anna, that means that Sophia is like Karenin.  It should not surprise us that when Tolstoy was dying, the one person that he did not want to see was Sofia.  He died near the train station where he left the train and the one person he did not want to see what his wife. 

     There is also a belief that Tolstoy is similar with Constantine Levin.  Levin is a wealthy man living on an estate outside of the city and works with the serfs living on his land.  This point was made in several versions of the film.   In fact, the 1967 version spent at least five minutes focusing on Levin’s serfs working in the fields. 

     The connection between Tolstoy and Levin was never fully addressed in any of the films; however, the role of Levin is extremely important in the novel.  I understand that the novel is called Anna Karenina, but even the author felt that the story of Kitty and Levin was important enough that he spent a great deal of time exploring this relationship and the positive change that Levin underwent as a result of his relationship with Kitty. 

     As I said earlier, poetic license aside, when working with a classic novel it is important that the film director remain as faithful to the novel as possible.  Stories such as Anna Karenina and other classic novels are timeless and can speak to audiences in various periods of history without having to change the story.  

                                                       End Notes

1. Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy Anna Karenina (NY: International Collectors Library) [trans. by Constance Garnett], p. 4

2. This film, which began the history of the numerous cinematic adaptations of Tolstoy’s works in world cinema, has not survived.

3. “Anna Karenina 2012”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Karenina_(2012_film)  This film won an Academy Award in 2013 for “Best Costume Design”. 

4. She received the Best Actress Award from the New York Film Critics for playing Anna in the 1935 film.

5. In Irina Makoveeva’s “Cinematic Adaptations of Anna Karenina” (Studies in Slavic Culture, University of Pittsburgh, pp. 111-134) In her dissertation, The Modes of Storytelling: A Rhetorical Analysis of Film and Television Adaptations of Arthur Conan Doyle’s The Hound of the Baskervilles and Leo Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina, Beata Jurkowska-Krupa compares the setting, plot, characters, point of view, and use of literary tropes in the 1935 film and the TV version of 1985. She analyzes how the structures of film and television influence the choice of rhetorical devices used in the stories they tell. I disagree with some of her conclusions: for example, the statement that television adaptations follow the narrative devices of the literary texts more closely than do film adaptations. In the case of the Anna Karenina versions, she is misled by her focus on the 1935 film, for a comparison with the Russian version of 1967 could have given opposite results.

6. “A Life for the Tsar” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Life_for_the_Tsar

7. Irina Makoveeva “Cinematic Adaptations of Anna Karenina” (Studies in Slavic Culture, University of Pittsburgh, p. 118.

8.”Tsarist Russia and the Women’s Movement” http://gem.greenwood.com/wse/wsePrint.jsp?id=id576

9. “Issues in the Tolstoy Marriage” http://marriage.about.com/od/thearts/a/leotolstoy_3.htm