I LOVE this book & have been long anticipating this film. I was not disappointed.
First of all, let’s address the fact that most of the action was set in an old theatre. I loved the post-modern, Julie Taymor-eque artistry of the vision; however, more than the strange beauty of the theatre-setting, it was a clever & creative way to establish the underlying insinuations of the 19th-century Russian high-society. The most apparent common thematic thread was the strict & stringent design behind theatrical productions that parallel the strict & stringent order of this particular society: every person has a specific job that must be performed with unquestioned precision for the production to exist, let alone flourish. With such strict expectations of one’s particular role comes the necessity of incorporating a sense of hierarchy (this idea was ingeniously executed in the film with Levin willing placing himself among the stage crew). Imperialist Russia was nothing if not dramatic & there is no better setting than a theatre to convey the power of ghosts lingering in the wings, stolen glances, & living lies. There seems to something about theatres (especially in period films) that insinuate seediness. Maybe something about the heightened drama of a theatrical setting that makes the commonly unacceptable strangely alright; maybe it’s that acting is inherently presenting false-truths & the necessity to live false-truths becomes present when one is engaging in unacceptable actions such as an affair; I’m not sure what the link is, but the imagery definitely works. Lastly, the use of the theatre as a setting conveys the struggle that comes with living one’s life on a stage. This reality served as a cornerstone of Anna’s conflict & is a surprisingly contemporary emphasis & application of Tolstoy’s ageless novel.
First of all, let’s address the fact that most of the action was set in an old theatre. I loved the post-modern, Julie Taymor-eque artistry of the vision; however, more than the strange beauty of the theatre-setting, it was a clever & creative way to establish the underlying insinuations of the 19th-century Russian high-society. The most apparent common thematic thread was the strict & stringent design behind theatrical productions that parallel the strict & stringent order of this particular society: every person has a specific job that must be performed with unquestioned precision for the production to exist, let alone flourish. With such strict expectations of one’s particular role comes the necessity of incorporating a sense of hierarchy (this idea was ingeniously executed in the film with Levin willing placing himself among the stage crew). Imperialist Russia was nothing if not dramatic & there is no better setting than a theatre to convey the power of ghosts lingering in the wings, stolen glances, & living lies. There seems to something about theatres (especially in period films) that insinuate seediness. Maybe something about the heightened drama of a theatrical setting that makes the commonly unacceptable strangely alright; maybe it’s that acting is inherently presenting false-truths & the necessity to live false-truths becomes present when one is engaging in unacceptable actions such as an affair; I’m not sure what the link is, but the imagery definitely works. Lastly, the use of the theatre as a setting conveys the struggle that comes with living one’s life on a stage. This reality served as a cornerstone of Anna’s conflict & is a surprisingly contemporary emphasis & application of Tolstoy’s ageless novel.
I’ve never been a fan of Keira Knightley, so my expectations were pretty low. She’s always seemed like the British Anne Hathaway to me, but I actually enjoyed & appreciated her portrayal of Ms. Anna K. [even though, for it being the title role, the role itself did not seem extremely challenging; sub-par acting could have been easily over-looked by the impeccable film-making quality & artistic vision]. Ms. Knightley has served as the muse for director Joe Wright’s in Atonement & Pride & Prejudice. I didn’t love her as Elizabeth Bennet & her performance as Anna made me realize why: she is a period actress who is consistently cast in the wrong era. Her aura & physicality were an awkward fit for the empire dresses of Pride & Prejudice. However, her angular beauty, quiet/complicated restraint, & British frigidity make her a good fit for Imperialist Russia. Her character was styled perfectly, with stacks of pearls & subtley disheveled hair. I also appreciated that she (and Jude Law) were cast in a perfectly age-appropriate manner.
He was great. Jude Law is an exceptional actor & his skills are overshadowed by his physical perfection. This was not the case. He allowed himself to appear weathered, rigid, & largely unappealing. However, the beauty in his performance that he did not allow Karenin to appear a monster. His performance reminded me of Philip Quast's perfected portrayal of Javert in Les Mis: he aims to rigidly adhere to his society's holy rules & cannot forgive the deviant, defiant, or different interactions between these iron rules & the infallibility of human nature. I found his performance as Karenin to be the most complicated & thought-provoking in the entire film. His specific conflict in dealing with an unfaithful wife carried a more complicated weight than the burden facing any other character & Jude Law conquered the challenge beautifully.
For being the character who serves as the catalyst for most of the conflict, Vronksy is a surprisingly shallow character. Taylor-Johnson presented a nice balance in his performance by realizing his role was more important in the context of the entire story than as complex character. He was appropriately charming & his chemistry with Ms. Knightley was surprisingly sufficient. My favorite part of his performance was his consistent sense of distance; even at his most intimate moments with Anna, there was a clear & cold feeling that one foot might been veering towards the door.
Domhnall Gleeson as Levin & Alicia Vikander as Kitty
Gleeson was the ideal image of Levin in my mind & incorporated both Levin's angst at his disppointment & strict inherent allegiance to living as a good & honorable man. As Kitty, Ms. Vikander dispayed the unassuming beauty & innocence of a girl in the beginning of the film and transformed into an elegant young woman of the house by the end. The only element of this storyline that was lacking was their history: Kitty & Levin had a history that was glossed over & assumed; she chooses Vronksy over Levin, only to have him leave her for Anna. The devastation that Kitty endures from Vronksy's betrayal leads to a process of self-actualization/understanding that leads her back to Levin. That journey was ignored & would have been a welcome addition to the film as a whole. 
.jpg)
