ANNA KARENINA (2000): SERIES 1

No matter how faithful a film is to the book it's based on, one crucial element will always go begging: the words with which it's written. A great novel is as much a triumph of language as it is of plot, character, dialogue and setting; but while these elements lend themselves to visualization, the grace and elegance of the writing do not. Remove the style and what remains would be like an opera without the music. The essence of the novel gets lost in transition to any other medium.So in setting about to watch an adaptation of a great novel, one should first take up the book and, following Scottish philosopher David Hume's advice "commit it to the flames." Otherwise it will haunt you throughout the entire film because you'll find yourself attempting the impossible task of comparing the two.If you then add in the Platonic view that a work of art is a copy of a copy, then a work in translation becomes a copy of a copy of a copy, and a film becomes - well, it's enough to make your head spin. See why it's so much easier to just take the film on its own merits? And this Masterpiece Theatre production of "Anna Karenina" has sufficient merits to be considered a great film.It captures the soul of a particular time and place with great economy and considerable subtlety, rendering the events surrounding Anna's love affair with Count Vronsky and the inevitable consequences of that affair plus parallel stories of other characters' romantic endeavors in just under four hours. Its somber tone and undercurrent of impending doom follows Anna like a doppelganger from her very first appearance, even stalking her amidst the lively, sumptuous balls she attends, like a dark cloud hanging over her every activity.If acting is bringing a character to life, then Helen McCrory's performance as Anna Karenina is nothing less than superb. It's clear from her very first appearance that Ms McCrory the actress is slightly older and slightly less beautiful than the character. Yet when she comes alive at the Ball, in Count Vronsky's company, she transcends her own physical presence to become a stunningly beautiful woman. This degree of acting goes well beyond walking, talking, emoting and being made-up for the role, to the level of actually being the character. Helen McCroy's artistry makes it clear that Anna's eventual decline proceeds from something deep within her which her affair with Count Vronsky merely precipitates but doesn't create; her Anna Karenina is destined for destruction whether she ever meets Vronsky or not.Kevin McKidd may seem a bit wooden as Count Vronsky - but is that an acting flaw or a truer rendition of the character? Given Vronsky's upbringing by the cold, calculating social climber Countess Vronskaya would he not have effected a cold, indifferent facade, that even in the throes of great emotion still manages to conceal his deeper self? And though we're not given much detail of Konstantin Levin's upbringing, his fluid, open facade - especially as effected by Douglas Henshall - offers the perfect contrast to Vronsky's exterior, just as his sense of life perfectly contrasts Vronsky's. But it's Stephen Dillane's rendition of Prince Alexei Karenin, Anna's husband, that gives the finishing touch to everything that happens. He's neither uncaring nor unfeeling, though he's made to become indifferent to his wife's plight through the machinations of the truly sinister Countess Lidia Ivanova, who manages to drive a wedge between not only husband and wife but mother and son as well.It's important to bear in mind not merely the period Tolstoy was writing about but the period in which he was writing. There are pronounced themes throughout European literature of the late Victorian era - such as the troubling search for honesty as a counterweight to the deep hypocrisy of the period - which infuse the works of Chekhov, Ibsen, Hardy, Flaubert and others as well as the works of Tolstoy. Which begs the question: would a real Anna Karenina of the period Tolstoy was writing about have endured the same fate as his heroine by discarding all the hypocritical trappings which a more worldly woman, such as Princess Betsy, surrounded herself with - or was this trait Tolstoy gave Anna a product of his thinking at the time he wrote the book and totally alien to an actual woman of that earlier period? Not that it makes any difference as far as the film goes; but it does give pause for thought about the central character of the book upon which the film is based.

I had never read Tolstoy's novel on which this is based, nor knew much about the story prior to picking this up from the library one rainy afternoon. Much to my astonishment, I loved it. It is more than just a lavish costume drama (although the exquisite costumes and painstaking attention to detail will make any woman swoon with delight), it is also a passionate glimpse into love and lust, revenge and forgiveness, innocence and carnality.The first time through I was swept up in the primary story of the lovers. Anna's passionless marriage to Alexei leads her to fall hard and fast for the romantic, sweet-talking Count Vronsky. But on a second viewing (no less than two days later, I just could not stay away from it!) my attention was diverted by Levin's romance with Kitty. It is a film that is almost too much to take in all at once, because it is so deep and complex in its emotions. One thing I appreciated was that none of the characters are one-dimensional. Anna is deeply emotional and following her heart causes her to self-destruct. Alexei Karenin by contrast is restrained to the point of seeming cold, but it is evident from a perfectly nuanced performance that he ISN'T cold, and he DOES care, he just hides most of his emotions beneath the surface.Admittedly, I do not much care for the casting of the main lovers, but the rest of the extended cast are brilliant, particularly Stephen Dillane as Alexei. In the span of a handful of scenes, I came around to liking him much more than the "passionate lover," Vronsky. One of the finest moments comes at Anna's sickbed, when husband and lover are both in attendance. The beautiful writing and tremendous performances -- calm detachment from Alexei, and passionate grief from Vronsky -- make it mesmerizing.I also appreciate that in spite of "sexing up" the adulterous aspect, the film refrains from being too explicit. What seems to be important here is motivations and emotions rather than purely physical connections, which makes it unlike many other stories in the genre. Minus a minor flub over the Russian Church performing a marriage ceremony in Latin, it is in all respects "almost perfect."How do I know? Because when my library copy became due, I went online and purchased a copy, because I cannot live without it. It's that good.

I read Leo Tolstoy's Anna Karenina not too long ago and wanted to purchase a movie version. There were a few to choose from, but I enjoyed watching Helen McCrory in the series Peaky Blinders so much that I decided to purchase the edition with her in the starring role. I was not disappointed. The movie was very true to the book and the acting was awesome!! The scenes and costumes were authentic and the music was wonderful. Buy this DVD!!

For the price paid I'd expect a proper high quality image even for SD. These episodes are only 404p to 430p and even then just lack clarity. It's a very Youtube like image. This is supposed to be one of the better rated Anna Karenina adaptations but this edition is a very poor addition to one's collection. Very disappointed when I was expecting a lush experience.

enjoyed this - much better than the movie except the costumes & sets were not as elaborate . Would definitely recommend this as a better version however. Shirley C.

Enjoyed the movie but many scenes were very dark!!! Service was great.

I have seen most adaptations of this story and this ranks as one of the best. The best, in my opinion, in the one starring Jacqueline Bisset and Christopher Reeve.