Joe Wright is a gifted director. His direction is daring, inventive, captivating, and unforgettable. But that doesn’t make him a great director. A great director finds a way to take the material he’s given and bring it to its maximum potential. Joe Wright doesn’t elevate his movies; he exceeds them. Pride and Prejudice and Hanna are marvelous, but Atonement and The Soloist are terrible. Granted, any director can only do so much with a script he’s given, but Wright seems content to leave his poor stories in the dust so that we can sit in awe at his bold direction like the long take of Dunkirk in Atonement or the musical colors in The Soloist. In his new film, Anna Karenina, Wright has once again blown past his story by using a melodrama to wrap his fascinating framing device rather than the other way around. Anna Karenina is a wonder to behold, but it leaves you wondering what you’re holding.
Based on the Leo Tolstoy tome of the same name, Anna Karenina takes place in 1874 Imperial Russia. The eponymous character (Keira Knightley) has grown distant from her rigid husband Alexei Karenin (Jude Law), and becomes enraptured by the swaggering, virile Count Vronsky (Aaron Taylor-Johnson). She begins an affair with Vronsky, which sends high society crashing down around her as her selfishness and immaturity blinds her to understanding love beyond the capacity for forgiveness. Meanwhile, as a basis for comparison, we see the story of Levin (Domhnall Gleeson), a friend of Anna’s philandering brother Oblonsky (Matthew Macfadyen). Levin is a shy, earnest man who has traveled beyond the claustrophobic high society of Russia, but returns to seek the hand of Kitty (Alicia Vikander), the younger sister of Oblonsky’s wife, Dolly (Kelly Macdonald).
The grand plot is almost secondary to the film’s framing device: Anna Karenina is “set” inside an empty theater. Scenes unfold on the stage, in the auditorium, in the rafters, on the catwalk, and then it breaks the bonds of the theatre to bring us into the settings of train cars, bedrooms, etc. We’re transported in and out of the theatre seemingly at random. But watching these transitions is absolutely mesmerizing. Wright uses playful long takes (one of his trademarks) to create impossible spaces that break the bounds of reality. Are we on the stage or are we in the world? The characters never recognize they’re in a theater. It simply revolves around them as they perform for a absent audience.
So we’re left trying to wrap our heads around what Wright is trying to do with his framing device. Is this a dress rehearsal for a real performance? Is it meant to convey the theatricality of the Tolstoy’s story? Is this simply a play on “All the world’s a stage?” (that reading seems a little too easy, and also seems off-key to crib Shakespeare when working from Tolstoy). As best as I could see it, the stage seems to be a cage of Russian high society. Everything is beautifully orchestrated, costumed, and choreographed, but the players are prisoners. Only Levin, with his pure heart and willingness to leave the aristocracy behind, is able to exit the stage for wide open spaces.
Levin’s love story is the only element of the plot that doesn’t meet with Wright’s scorn. Without Levin’s story, the movie would be nothing more than a simple pretense for Wright to exercise his idea, an idea he could have done with plenty of other 19th century literary classics. Anna Karenina, as created by Wright, is a big, bold tale of forbidden love that rolls its eyes at being a big, bold tale of forbidden love. Anna’s “love” for Vronsky and her betrayal of Alexei has all the weight of a high school relationship. We’re never meant to buy a serious, mature love between Anna and Vronsky. There’s always a little silliness to any melodrama, but for Wright, it’s almost perfunctory. Despite the strength of the performances, we can never sympathize with Anna, Alexei, and Vronsky because the framing device constantly reminds us that they’re characters. They’re no longer being framed or illustrated by the stage; they’re devoured by it.
The star of Anna Karenina isn’t the cast or the story; it’s Joe Wright. The stage he’s created doesn’t enhance Tolstoy’s classic story, but dwarfs it. Even the aristocracy/proletariat comparison seems like a quaint touch (Anna is a member of the former, and Levin is a member of the latter) rather than something worthy of our full attention. The film is emotionally cold because it rarely wants to seriously consider the characters’ feelings. They’re simply talking props in Wright’s beautiful ballet. Anna Karenina is a glowing testament to Joe Wright’s skill as a director, but not as a storyteller.
Rating: 7.5 out of 10
For all of our TIFF 2012 coverage, click here. Here are links to all of my TIFF 2012 reviews:
Don Cheadle Talks IRON MAN 3, Shane Black, Changes on Set, CAPTAIN PLANET, and If Rhodey Might Appear in AVENGERS 2 or CAPTAIN AMERICA 2
Ellen Page Teleports to the Set of X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST
Kevin Feige Says DOCTOR STRANGE Is “Next Up” for Marvel to Explore; Hints at Possible Phase Three Release
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS Spoiler Free Video Blog Review
IRON MAN 3 Review
Matt I would say that in Tolstoy’s world, the characters are often vague and aloof in the book. He never lets you in to the rarefied world of Imperial Russia. He uses literary devices like Joe Wright uses directorial ones. To further distance yourself from the feeling of something. I found it odd at first Wrights choice to use a stage, but upon re-reading Anna Karenina the book does seem suited to the almost inescapable rigidity of a stage. I found the lack of overt melodrama really fresh and unexpected. He crafts scenes where you simply cannot look away. Which I have to say is no mean feat. I’d say it is the polar opposite of Pride and Prejudice.
“Pride and Prejudice and Hanna are marvelous, but Atonement and The Soloist are terrible.” Atonement, terrible? Goldberg strikes again. Anyway, with all his talk about the story, I am willing to bet that he has never read Tolstoy’s novel. Then again, I would bet that he has never read a novel. Ever.
I must confess appreciation, however, that Goldberg doesn’t say that “Wright and co. don’t understand Anna Karenina.” Instead, however, he offers something much, much worse than simple repetition in his facile comparison to “All the world’s a stage.” Did he just type in stage into google, and then decide to make the comparison?
Atonement terrible??? You’re kidding me!!!
Yeah I stopped reading when I saw that. Atonement might not be a classic, but its a damn fine film and worthy of the awards its won/nominated.
I totally agree with Goldberg on ‘Atonement’. I liked the movie for its camera-work but I didn’t love it. I had the same feeling with ‘Hanna’ and the ‘Soloist’. I liked what I saw but I was left cold by the way the stories were narrated. I am not surprised by the fact that ‘Anna Karenina’ feels the same way.
Wright is a shallow and self indulgent director.
Please stop reviewing films, Goldberg. Atonement is terrible??? You, your out-of-touch opinions, shallow reviews, in fact all of your ridiculous posts on this site, are so bland and frequently incorrect that it’s embarrassing.
matt are you serious? atonement is probably his best film
atonement is phenomenal
83%on RT? yeah terrible lol
not to mention 7 oscar noms and one for best picture
I stopped reading after “Atonement is terrible.” It feels like a silly thing to get in a huff about now…
I do appreciate parts of this review as well as your certain opinions on Joe Wright’s style, but for you to call Atonement terrible is complete ridiculousness. How about instead you say “In my humble opinion,” before you go off making bold statements as if they’re facts. I enjoy this site very much but sometimes I feel you review way to harshly, not because it’s necessary but only because you can.
you have to take your Words “Terrible” against “Atonement” this is not acceptable on any ground. This makes me judge your caliber for reviewing movies. Collider maybe my fav. blog, web to read about movies but it doesn’t mean you guys start trashing great movies which still so close to our hearts. Atonement was GREAT movie on so many levels.
You guys may get away with Bad Reviews on “The Dark Knight Rises” & “The Amazing Spider-man” but calling Atonement Terrible is just out of line. Rotten Tomatoes rating don’t lie either critics or audiances on these movie. just because you nerds don’t like it, you guys start trashing great movies. There was a time when Newspapers use to fire Journalists for calling a Good movie trashy on his personal grudge or hate for that genre but now these Online Blogger can open their mouths like it doesn’t matter. well it does and it saddens me that my fav. site will print something like that!
Hanna is marvelous ? Hum… We didn’t watch the same movie then.
I stopped reading when Matt said Atonement was a terrible movie. I understand not liking it but I’m pretty sure it’s not fair to just haul off and deem it terrible. I can thing of many other movies that are far inferior so I’m not sure what you would call those movies if terrible is taken.
A modern take on Tolstoy. Not for everyone. Brave adaptation. Go for the ride. It’s fantastic.
Prediction: oscar noms for production design, costume, Knightley.
I did not like his version of Pride and Prejudice (I am a big Austen fan), could not finish Hanna and did not like Atonement except for the performance of Saoirse Ronan. Rotten Tomatoes (or the Oscars for that matter) which several writers have referenced have in my view never been a reliable source of cinema merit. However the treatment of this production is tantalizing and as for “emotion” of the characters, the book itself does not provoke much emotional display. I will see this adaption.
Atonement is a great movie!
You are a one very lousy critic, sir.
Such a lousy critic.