Editing this since this video is gaining a ton of traction right now (thank you!) and I need to answer some questions. 1) I made this video in high school, using clips I'd found on RUclips, without a full version of these movies/shows. As a result the quality is low. 2) To the annoyed Russians asking why I didn't include the 1967 Soviet production of Anna Karenina with Samoylova: this video did originally include the 1967 film, but because of copyright, I had to remove it. The first half of the 1967 film, including the waltz, is available on RUclips courtesy of Mosfilm (ruclips.net/video/Y5YutODgC0k/видео.html&ab_channel=%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%22%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BC%22). I repeat, the video DID originally include the 1967 version, but I had to remove it to keep the video up! 3) My comments on the 2012 version with Keira Knightley are overly harsh and frankly immature. Apologies. Again, I was a dumb kid when I made this. 4) A couple of you have commented that you would've liked to see the 1977 and 2013 versions. I'm sorry I didn't include them in the original video, but I've made a short video comparing just those two versions. You can watch it here: ruclips.net/video/lBGCPMV9DQs/видео.html 5) This isn't an issue for this particular video, but in many of the other compilations, I tried to translate the Russian versions into English. Because I was (see above) a dumb kid and did not really speak Russian, my translations were awful. I am aware of this. No need to comment and point it out. Thanks for all the support on this video, and the other Anna Karenina compilations. It's fun to scroll through your comments - sorry I cannot reply to all of them! Happy holidays and all the best.
Thank you for taking time to respond to us. All your explanations are accepted, and you don't need to overemphasize that you "were immature kid". We all, Russian speakers, read this novel at high school, it was part of the program. Teachers were aware that most serious literature we were actually forced to read, and it was above our head, but educators also knew that if we didn't read at school most of us would never read at all. I read it twice and now; after watching your compilations and reading comments, I felt that at the age of 70+ I'm beginning to understand this novel. I'm watching Soviet version 1967 and will read the novel the third time. The character of Aleksej Karenin is, in my opinion, the most complex character of all works of Tolstoy, maybe even in all Russian literature of 19th century. I see it now, but not yet ready to discuss. I will say heresy now: I believe that even Soviet great actor and producer in their 1967 version failed to render the true personality of Aleksej Karenin. His "good" part is downplayed, covered with cliche that he is a hypocrite, soulless, heartless, cold person. And yes, thank you for respecting authorship rights of Soviet authors, very few do.
oldfashionedgrrl, I subscribed to your account, you are very interesting person. Your selection of movies is interesting, it is sad that you are not fluent in Russian - you missed the whole interesting civilization. What you touched upon is only a tip of iceberg and mostly derivatives of unique Russian-Soviet culture.
2) In this version (1967), focus on Kitty, Anna's dance as the second background. I love the movie very much, but this particular episode is inexpressive.
All those actresses and actors are about something very far from Tolstoy's Anna Karenina. That's something like western movie melodrama. Why not to show abstract from Soviet film adaptation by Aleksandr Zarkhi starring Tatyana Samoylova and Vasiliy Lanovoy which is the closest to the novel and the atmosphere of Russian life in the second half of the 19th century?!
Я уже к этому привык. Группа талантливых иностранцев организует наспех проект "Анна Каренина - Кассовый сбор Номер 11бисА", собирает парочку красивых актеров, приспосабливает музыку из Чайковского или Шостаковича, перед съемками быстро просматривают брошюру "Анна Каренина" и "Архипелаг ГУЛАГ за сорок минут на двадцати страницах" и... "Камера!". Что? Там была советская версия? Ну так она же СОВЕТСКАЯ, там же не может быть правды! Там же "цензура"! Все эти версии, приятный комлимент, дань признания уникального места русской литературы в мировой цивилизации, но это попыытка, и не больше. Утверждаю, надо быть россиянином, надо уметь читать и думать по-русски. Русским трудно ставить Шекспира, а англо-саксам не надо даже пробовать. Ибо русские по-крайней мере стараются понять, вкладывают огромные усилия чтобы проникнуть в замысел, а англо-саксы все нахрапом, по-верхам. А актрисы иностранные хорошие, красивые, талантливые, но.... не Ваше.
@@urszulapanasiuk4892 Строго говоря, только музыка и живопись не знают границ, а литературные жанры очень зависять от языка и исторического контекста. Да, Шопен везде Шопен, и наверное переводы Мицкевича на русский или украинский мало теряют, а вот уже проза, скажем "Пан Тадеуш" даже на русском уже не оригинал. Это неизбежно, можно продолжать пытаться экранизировать иностранные романы, но трудно ожидать чуда. Я бы сказал, экранизация романов вообще очень трудное дело.
Where is the Soviet version of 1967? How could we say which one is the best if the most authentic Russian version with Samoylova and Lanovoj is not here?
@@lauraformigo3023 These are both parts with English subtitles. Anna Karenina, part 1 (1967) ruclips.net/video/Y5YutODgC0k/видео.html Part 2 ruclips.net/video/x5QdY1HWok0/видео.html part 2 I would strongly suggest reading the novel, I'm sure it was translated to Spanish. All Spanish classic was translated into Russian and is very well known to Russians. Educated Russians read this novel and "War and Peace" 2-3 times over the period of their lives. Tolstoy for Russians is what M. de Cervantes for you.
@@lauraformigo3023 O! I thought you were asking about movie "Anna Karenina". As to serial "Bolshoi" I don't think it was translated into any language, sad, the dialogs are great.
I must say, much as I like the 2017 production over-all - the 2012 staging of the waltz scene is just so intriguingly bizarre that I have to give it the thumbs up - how the actors managed to accurately perform all those incredibly strange and fascinating hand and arm gestures - together with the mind-bending choreography whereby it's Aaron Taylor-Johnson but then, at one point, Keira forcefully leading - well, it's all so very very different, but it works and, for me, insofar as the daringly strange performance invokes what is the daring strangeness of the Anna/Vronsky mutually unspoken decision exactly in the course of that waltz to pursue the passionately exciting danger of a socially illicit liaison - thx so much for this whole beautifully edited compilation of extraordinary interpretations of a timeless classic - viva Tolstoy!
The choreography is indeed mind-bending!! I remember seeing an interview with Keira Knightley, talking about just how difficult that dancing scene had been. And you're welcome-I'm so glad you enjoyed the video! :)
Стесняюсь спросить, а где же настоящая Анна? заявлены 5 экранизаций, и как неожиданно - лучшая версия всех времен и народов не представлена... как это по-западному.. а с другой стороны, если показать фильм 1967 года, где блистала Самойлова, все остальные на ее фоне будут, или похотливы, или нелепы...
Я уже к этому привык. Группа талантливых иностранцев организует наспех проект "Анна Каренина - Кассовый сбор Номер 11бисА", собирает парочку красивых актеров, приспосабливает музыку из Чайковского или Шостаковича, перед съемками быстро просматривают брошюру "Анна Каренина" и "Архипелаг ГУЛАГ за сорок минут на двадцати страницах" и... "Камера!". Что? Там была советская версия? Ну так она же СОВЕТСКАЯ, там же не может быть правды! Там же "цензура"! Все эти версии, приятный комлимент, дань признания уникального места русской литературы в мировой цивилизации, но это попыытка, и не больше. Утверждаю, надо быть россиянином, надо уметь читать и думать по-русски. Русским трудно ставить Шекспира, а англо-саксам не надо даже пробовать. Ибо русские по-крайней мере стараются понять, вкладывают огромные усилия чтобы проникнуть в замысел, а англо-саксы все нахрапом, по-верхам. А актрисы иностранные хорошие, красивые, талантливые, но.... не Ваше.
@@danutapersson7558 Masz na myśli XIX wiek? Coś podobnego prawdopodobnie wydarzyło się w klasach wyższych w wielu krajach Europy. Tańczyli o tym samym, Polonets, walc stawał się modny, chyba wszyscy rozumieli się po francusku. Tak, rosyjscy klasycy, nawet krytykując, malowali dla nas atrakcyjną kulturę. Ale czy nie dziwi Was, jak w sowieckim filmie z 1967 roku tak pięknie i bez cienia ironii pokazują nabożeństwo? I ogólnie społeczeństwo szlacheckie nie jest przedstawiane w karykaturze. Prawdopodobnie należysz do mojego pokolenia. Pamiętam, że przed Wielkanocą nauczyciele przypominali nam na lekcjach: jutro jest święto religijne, niektórzy z Was mają babcie, pójdą do kościoła, ale jesteście młodzi, rozumiecie, to relikt. Nie idź, mówią, że przy kościołach pełnią dyżury nauczyciele, jak cię zobaczą, to będzie niezręcznie wytłumaczyć, co tam zrobiłeś. Tak, nawet rząd radziecki był gorszy od potęgi sztuki; w rzeczywistości rząd już w tamtych latach bardzo potrzebował sztuki rosyjskiej. Uwielbiam Andrzeja Wajdę, zachwycił mnie jego film „Tonel”, a miałem wtedy zaledwie osiem lat! Rozumiem! A później Ash i Diamond.
I love this video and feel traitorous for wanting you to redo it and add 1935, 1977 and 2013. But this video literally made me go watch the 2017 version which I LOVED. Please keep doing these.
2017 version is definitely my fav, the set design, costumes....perfection. I even love the unusual telling of the story. When I first watched I thought the wrong movie was playing LOL.
I completely agree, the costumes are wonderful! And I had the same reaction when I watched it! The unusual telling is very special, and I think it was quite convincing. Glad you liked the video! :)
U didnt understand why in the version of 2012 Kitty is changing partners. Thats the whole point of the dance: kitty changes partners because Anna and Vronsky danced all night together without switching. That’s why everyone look at them and that’s why Kitty feels more and more angry and stressed as she switchs partners, because Anna and Vronsky do not. 😋
without watching Soviet masterpiece of 1967, it is pointless to discuss this interesting attempts. Even the most talented actresses performing in these versions could not save these movies. Interesting, curious, entertaining but nothing more.
При всей моей любви к Вивиан Ли , она, не Анна Каренина. Лучшая Анна Каренина- Татьяна Самойлова, а лучшая экранизация романа Толстого, это фильм Зархи с блистательными советскими актерами Василием Лановым, Николаем Гриценко, Майей Плисецкой и др.
Самойлова тоже не подходит на эту роль. Не Анна это! Надо читать роман, чтобы понять этот характер и внешность. Анна была роковой женщиной, соблазнительницей, она легко флиртовала и умела влюблять в себя, даже Левин настолько был очарован ею, что чуть не влюбился в неё (она же намеренно его очаровывала, сама признавалась, что если бы захотела, и его бы влюбила в себя), она хотела восхищать, восхищать постоянно, блистать, быть в центре внимания. Ну какая же это Самойлова? Самойлова милая, но она не дотягивает до толстовского образа. И Анна страстная, а Самойлова нежная. И в Самойлову никакой мужчина бы не влюбился с первой встречи. Нет в ней энергии обольщения, чувственности, сексапильности. Остальные актёры безупречны
@@MarinaVV в Самойловой нет энергии? В ней истерии нет, это точно. Но страсть, пагуба, мятежность, - все это не сыграно, а прожито. Идеальная Анна. И вы не мужчина, чтобы выносить мнение с какого взгляда в нее можно влюбиться. Красавец Лановой, игоавший Вронского, был ее мужем в тот момент. И это был бурный и страстный роман в жизни.
I liked your comments on the dancing scenes. Only, the "odd breathing noises" we hear at some point in the 2013 version are not those of the two lovers but of poor Kitty as she realises what's happening under her eyes.
Советский фильм 1967 года с Самойловой и Лановым - непревзойденный на все времена, гениальнейшая экранизация Толстого всех времен и народов! Все остальные - даже близко не могут приблизиться к этому уровню!
Thank you for putting this video together; it was great fun! I would recommend to you the 1977 BBC serial version of Anna K. It was mostly shot in studio so you don't get the same lushness of sets and atmosphere, but the casting was superb and I think it is the most faithful to the book by far. Thanks again for your hard work on this.
About Anna's black velvet ball dress. In the novel, it's described claearly, a black velvet dress with a geat deal of "Venician Lace" on it, which means it will be a "black and white" dress. However, almost every movie and TV adaptation chooses to make it a completely black one due to the mordern taste for costume. By the way, most of the dresses in the adaptations aren't velevt, perhaps because a great deal of velvet seems too heavy and old-fashioned.
I'm so glad someone noticed this!! The inaccuracies surrounding the dress have always really bothered me, particularly in the 2012 version-there the fabric looks very cheap, like some kind of silk taffeta. Some of the adaptations (1948, 1977) at least have historically accurate and very beautiful dresses, but I feel like Anna's ballgown is something a lot of directors tend to get wrong. I don't know, maybe that's just me being cranky. I do understand why the dress Tolstoy described would be totally unappealing to modern audiences, but I personally would rather have Tolstoy's lacy velvet than Wright's silk taffeta :)
@@oldfashionedgrrl The waistline in most adaptions costumes are also incorrect. During late 1860s and early 1870s, the waistline of a woman's dress was high above the lady's real waist. However, high waistline with the bustle is not something attractive for modern audience.
@@zt836 Yes, good point. I think 1870s fashion was incredibly beautiful! It's busy and frumpy to the modern eye, sure, but a story that takes place in the 1870s deserves to be shown with all the beauty of the original fashion. I think the 1997 version did a wonderful job of showcasing the beauty of the era, and I wish more adaptations used historically accurate costumes :') I don't know why more directors don't go big or go home when it comes to historical accuracy.
@@oldfashionedgrrl Even if the 1997 version's background was changed from the early 1870s to the early 1880s, the costumes are immensely magnificent. It embodies the pinnacle of costume dramas from the 1990s. 2017 version is also great compared with other versions (but still love 1997 version most).
@@zt836 Me too :) The costumes are literally breathtaking. The horse race dress and Anna's white tea gown in particular are two of my favorites. And yes, the costumes/sets in the 2017 version are really good too! I was actually surprised and impressed when I first saw a clip.
Nice video! I read the book some years ago but have seen none of these adaptations (I'm trying to understand what is the one that better embodies the atmosphere and characters of the book). I think I'll go with the Sophie Marceau one. Keira Knightley seems to be determined to spoil my favourite stories (Pride and Prejudice, Anna Karenina), she seems to only be able to play badass and brazen/cheeky characters, the "modern" idea of heroine. Anna is SO different from that!!! I saw on RUclips the ball scene from the 2013 adaptation, that seems nice as well (elegance, good manners, chemistry between the two main characters)
I totally agree about Keira Knightley-she's the main reason I didn't love Pride and Prejudice (2005), which I thought was otherwise a pretty decent adaptation. It's like she's only ever playing Keira Knightley, instead of playing the actual characters. And yes, the 2013 version is nice! I wouldn't say it's the best adaptation, but I like Puccini as Anna. Glad you enjoyed the video!
I think the 2012- Keira Knightly- production was AWESOME! The way in which the sets transformed from one scene to the other was just sheer genius! If we are just talking about comparisons of the ball scenes i have to say that they are all well done. Remember that the earlier pre 1950 films did not have the same cameras available as the 21st century cameras. I think the 2012 version is under rated. The choreography of the ball scene is truly new, but i can see where some would not be inclined to enjoy it. To me i sum these various scenes this way: All are perfection with different signatures.
What a kind way of seeing things! I aspire to your generosity-I always tend to notice the flaws when I'm watching a film. Yes, of course, camera technology is improved greatly, but I think good technique and vision always shows through, no matter how limited the camera. And I agree, the set changes in the 2012 version are very impressive! However, I don't think the film is underrated-it's been very popular, and has more or less received critical acclaim! While it's not to my taste, I'm so glad you enjoyed it :)
2012 version is overacted on purpose . it makes sense in context of adaptation presented as a play ( for some reason which i only partially understand ) rather than as a movie or show. but out of context is looks silly.
Sorry, I have to disagree. Keira Knightly is excellent in other movies. But Anna Karenina is not for her. Anna is interesting, because she has the beauty and sexiness of a woman who knows, has already given birth, and is conscious about the restrictions of society. Sophie Marceau has this quality, the Russian lady in the last version has it too. Keira not.
I'm not that familiar with the story of Anna Karenina, nor have I read the book. But I know something about the creative outworkings of films and what they are trying to portray. Particularly with an eccentric director like Joe Wright. I've seen several of his films and he seems to be a big fan of metaphors. His period films also tend to cater to modern-day audiences so they can understand the sensibilities of the time period since values and morals have changed since the 1800s. He did the same thing with Pride and Prejudice, like how Catherine de Bourgh knocked on the Bennett family's door at night. Realistically, even for a rich person, something like that would be despicable in those days. But calling at dusk, as described in the book, doesn't make much sense today why that action was bold in those days. Anyhoo, I think Wright took the same liberties with the film, Anna Karenina. As for the metaphoric side of things, you ranted about how it didn't make sense for Anna and Vronsky to be in the scene alone when everything they did was in public. I think that's the point. Anna and Vronsky were too much into each other they weren't paying attention to how they looked to the others. And Kitty switching partners while Anna and Vronsky were dancing was showing how long they were dancing. From the clips I've seen, Wright was showing his metaphoric side throughout the film. I understand why you don't like Wright's version of the film. I feel that Wright's approach to classic stories is an acquired taste.
That makes sense about Kitty switching partners; thank you for explaining that. Yes, Wright certainly takes an eccentric approach. The scene with Lady Catherine in P&P 2005 is interesting to say the least (but I'm willing to overlook the inaccuracy because Judi Dench is so good)! I just can't help feeling that a lot of the main roles were miscast in the 2012 version-Anna, Vronsky, and Stiva in particular. Matthew MacFadyen was compelling in P&P 2005, but he portrays a bumbling and almost idiotic Stiva. Tolstoy's Stiva is more adept and likable. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is actually quite good as Vronsky (though those uniforms really haunt my nightmares). But Keira Knightley as Anna just doesn't butter my toast. I don't know, I haven't seen the entire film, but I've seen enough of it to feel that it doesn't represent Tolstoy's ideas very well. (Then again, I'm not Tolstoy, nor was I alive in 1878, so who knows!) I agree that Wright's directing is definitely an acquired taste. The lighting in the 2012 waltz scene is really incredible, but the strange dancing, along with the breathing sounds, just wasn't the thing for me. On the other hand, I adored Darkest Hour, and P&P 2005 is a really cute film. Anyways, thank you for watching the video and reading all my rants! Hope you have a nice day :)
@@oldfashionedgrrl Considering that I've never read Anna Karenina and have only seen clips of it, I'll take your word for it. Interestingly, many actors who played in Pride and Prejudice have also played in Anna Karenina. But, yeah, I have noticed that Wright's retake of classic stories tends to be dramatic, modernized, and metaphoric. This formula seems consistent with many of his films. My sister is a huge fan of BBC's 1995 version of Pride and Prejudice. Possibly the most faithful adaptation of the book. When Wright's version was promoted in 2004, my sister was in shock at how much was changed in his version vs the book. The more modern language and other factors. She hated it. Now many years later, she still prefers the 1995 version but has a better understanding of Wright's creative decisions. Thanks for the kind response and I hope you have a great day as well!💖😄
Фильмы Джо Райта "Гордость и предубеждение" и "Анна Каренина" для меня лучшие. Да, он во многом отступает от классического произведения, адаптирует его к современности. А почему нет? Но как он показывает чувства, страсть! Какая эротика во взглядах и жестах! В этом Джо Райту нет равных.
@@ЕленаУсынина-ш3з I agree. His movies are great if you don't take everything at face value. In many ways, films that use metaphors are deeper than films that portray everything accurately. It's like unfolding a mystery. I love it!
These interesting, though incomplete compilation of some of the versions of "Anna Karenina" would rather be called "What is the second-best version of movie after Soviet masterpiece "Anna Karenina" of 1967?"
Why even bother to compare? Sophie Marceau is stunning as Anna! Perfectly nuanced performance. (Kiera Knightley came across as simply a hysterical nutcase.)
The best looking Vronsky is from the russian version, He really looks like russian aristocrat. He even looks similar to the last tsar of Russia. They know how their nobility looked like nothing like hollywood. actresses and actors
В русском варианте играл актёр Василий Лановой. Он действительно выглядел как аристократ. Вторя его « аристократическая» роль - брат прекрасной Элен в экранизации « Войны и мира». Хотя родился он в простой деревенской семье, то есть его предки были крестьянами. Он был не просто красив, но ещё и очень талантлив. Он умер несколько лет назад. Ему было 87 лет. Он очень красиво постарел, не используя пластическую хирургию. Он был активен до конца своих дней, принимал участие во встречах с поклонниками , на которых читал стихи. Даже его голос был очень красивым, хотя ему пришлось избавляться от заикания. Во время войны его деревня была оккупирована немцами. Кто - то из них выстрел в его сторону, увидев, что на мальчике надет ремень советского офицера. Будущий актёр стал из-за этого заикаться, но ремень не снял. Позже он преподавал сценическую речь в театральном институте имени Щукина, стал профессором. Он так же много играл в театре. На родине очень любят ещё 2 фильма с его участием. « Алые паруса», режиссёр- Александр Птушко, снят в 1961 году. И фильм « Офицеры» , режиссёр- Владимир Роговой, снят в 1971 году. Так же есть запись самого известного спектакля с его участием- « Принцесса Турандот», режиссёр- Евгений Вахтангов, запись сделана в 1971 году. Не знаю, есть ли возможность посмотреть эти фильмы и запись спектакля в других странах, но я советую попробовать их поискать. Вы убедитесь, насколько многогранным был талант Василия Ланового.
Танец в версии 2012 года неприятный и вульгарный с непонятными метаниями рук.Здесь не показали еще две постановки "Анны Карениной":там,где Анну играет Грета Гарбо и ,на мой взгляд,самая отвратительная постановка режис. Соловьева и самая отвратительная Анна, какую только можно себе представить!!!Не хочу даже вспоминать фамилию актрисы),которая сыграла Анну у Соловьева.Бездарность! Что касается внешних данных,то самая некрасивая героиня получилась у Елизаветы Боярской,это огромный минус гримерам,потому что Лиза очень обаятельная и интересная актриса! Считаю,что лучшей постановкой(во всех отношениях) этого романа является фильм, снятый в 1967 году с Татьяной Самойловой и Василием Лановым.Хотя Вивьен Ли и Мишель Марсо тоже очень хороши!!!
Сравнивать не хочется, они такие разные. И это прекрасно. Самойлова и Лановой (67 год) - классика, а Кира и Аарон - современное прочтение романа. Мне по душе оба варианта. Прекрасно, что каждый режиссер осуществил своё видение 👍 А ещё Сантьяго Кабрера хорош в образе Вронского. Жаль, не смогла найти этот фильм на просторах интернета.
Современное прочтение - это когда роман адаптируют к нашему дню. А там ничего не влаптировали, время было оригинальнок а люди изображали жителей 21 века. Максимально неорганично.
Kiera Knightly’s facial expressions are more of what I picture from the book & they definitely seem attracted to each other. The actress right before her clip didn’t show much chemistry or emotion, though she was generically sweet, which isn’t exactly the goal. It was hard to picture why Vronsky was enamored with her over Kitty. They had to have a narrator explain what we couldn’t see.
2012 год однозначно❤️. Прекрасная пара молодых и красивых людей! Необычно снят бал. Блестящий танец, разительно отличается от всего другого. Лучший фильм, по моему мнению. Обожаю.
Согласна с вами. Я совсем недавно посмотрела этот фильм и это стало открытием для меня, ничего подобного я не ожидала. Другой взгляд на классику. Кира и Аарон фантастически показали страсть.
У Шахназарова, с точки зрения режиссуры, всё безупречно. Кроме главной героини. Спорно очень. Хотя.. где ж нынче подходящую натуру возьмешь, да что б еще играть умела. Всё остальное иностранное просто ужасно. Такие ляпы, что поражаешься непрофессионализму. Не курили там, где танцуют, в бальном зале! Для этого были курительные комнаты. И не пили у всех на виду. Ну, не салун какой-нибудь, и не кабак. Первый раз вижу бальные танцы 70-х годов 19 века, где размахивают руками и выделывают ими замысловатые движения. Это время турнюров и шлейфов. Чтобы шлейф не мешал, он крепился к левой руке дамы. Не очень-то рукой помашешь
hi, Etoile! sorry to bother you, I really love your channel and I've watched this video several times, but I've noticed a mistake in your translation at minute 19:34. The orchestra's maestro is announcing the upcoming dance, which is "La valse" (the waltz), rather than saying "Lovers".
Estoy completamente de acuerdo con tu opinion sobre la versión de 2017. Es mi favorita. Se siente que en verdad estan enamorados. No se siente nada forzado. Todo fluye.
Thank you! I’ve read the book and seen only the version with the amazing Vivien Leigh, not the others, maybe because I don’t like that story. I think that Sophie Marceau being not the most beautiful, was the most down to earth Anna Carenjna, while Sean Bean gave us the Vronsky ideal, handsome like sin! I also liked Maxim Matveyev in 2017 version! I’d like to see Greta Garbo and John Gilbert.
Дурацкая челка Софи Марсо совершенно неуместна. Приличные женщины в те времена челок не носили. Странный гротескный танец с Кирой Найтли непонятно зачем такой. Лучше всего выглядит версия с Вивьен Ли 😂😂😂. Из тех что есть
Роман написан 1873 году, а Щелкунчик( музыка) в 1892 -это экранизация 1997года 😅😅 лучшая экранизация Анны Карениной это, конечно, 1967 год режиссер Зархи с Самойловой… здесь наиболее убедительно выглядит версия 2017 года
I think the fundamental question here is whether Vronsky and Anna were in love at this point; I say no, they were just attracted to each other. I think the 2012 version does an excellent job of showing this immediate infatuation. This is very early on in their relationship, and I think Anna is so attracted to Vronsky that she forgets herself. The frozen dancers in the background/heavy breathing illustrate that; they aren't deeply in love yet, they've barely met, they're just fascinated by each other. Vronsky is a womanizer - he doesn't think very much about women's feelings, but here (in this scene in the book), he distinguishes Anna from the other women (Kitty) that he's danced with and decides that he "has" to have her. The drama of the 2012 version illustrates this far better than the reserved 2017 version, in my personal opinion. This is passion, not quiet love. Additionally, in the book, if I'm remember correctly, this scene is told partially through Kitty's eyes. The 2012 version highlights Kitty's frustration at what she thought was going to be a perfect night getting ruined. She was so excited to dance with Vronsky, and having to watch him dance with Anna so publicly breaks her heart. The 2012 version also takes a moment to acknowledge Anna's guilt at essentially betraying this younger family member who looked up to her, and wanted Anna to like her. Kitty is very hurt by Anna's actions, and Anna knows this. The consideration of this exchange, held in equal import to Anna and Vronsky's exchange, highlights the interpersonal conflict being set up, and builds Kitty's character. I really disagree with this ranking, all respect to the creator though.
Hey, thank you for sharing your thoughts on the 2012 version! When I made this video, I hadn't seen much more of the 2012 movie, and the more I've seen of it, the more I appreciate what Joe Wright was trying to do. I still don't love the movie, but I see where he was coming from, and I do like the visual aesthetic of it (as well as the soundtrack, which I think is one of the best I've ever heard). I was super harsh on the 2012 version in this video and I'm not sure I had reason to be. Joe Wright does a really good job of illustrating to a modern audience (who may not be familiar with the novel) how shocking Anna and Vronsky's affair was. I agree with all your observations-I think the movie just isn't my kind of movie. But I'm glad you enjoyed it, and thank you for watching the video!
2012 version is overacted on purpose . it makes sense in context of adaptation presented as a play ( for some reason which i only partially understand ) rather than as a movie or show. but out of context is looks silly.
Yes!! Thank you for this!! My thoughts exactly; i think people just don't "get" most of it (and i don't blame them, i didn't the first time either) because of the whole metaphoric language or context that Wright was trying to portray that IS in the book, i think he actually did an excelent, marvellous job with this movie and that it deserved better. Also the fact that it is so intense on purpose and the whole play and theater scenery choices were because Tolstoi was making a social critic on how russian society was always fake, like they were always performing, that's why he also made the decision to represent higher classes (therefore most of the movie) on a main stage and lower classes behind the stage, while Levin's story takes place in the country (not staged, like, a real outside location), because it was not ruled by social russian norms. The "weird" dancing IMO was just a creative decision to make it more appealing and/or to represent how they "flowed" together, this level of sync is actually insane so it fits perfectly for two characters that are experiencing "lust at first sight" and connect physically uwu
@@vanyasanroman1949 well if "people just don't "get" most of it" , he didn't do a good job . also i don't know whether your interpretation of his intentions are correct or not, but if they are, they were result of ignorant simplistic narrow minded prejudices about book , what is wants to say, and russia. also his overt labeling is worthy of a children's lay or a 18th century one. and to fail to make "people get it" even with labels, is pathetic. .
@@sitting_nut most of this info is explained in the interviews w the crew and wright himself, i know this kind of adaptations aren't for everyone, but i meant that if people don't have the context (having read the book or watched the whole movie) it's easy to overlook some narrative presented, not because he did a bad job, i'm sorry you didn't like it tho, but i hope that clears some things up, like it being presented as a play:)
1997, the cast, costumes and story interpretation is the best. The most natural, the least amount of ‘posing’, the best interpretation of material and the actors conveyed emotions involved in the most authentic way. My comment goes to the entire movie, not just this part. This version gives context to actions of characters by referring to backstory and it has human element going through entire movie. That being said, Jude Law ( 2017 version) is the most authentic Karenin among all versions before and after. I remember being 15 years old, reading the novel for the first time, and feeling for him- he wanted to be loved and he truly wanted to be a good decent person. I never understood the way he was often portrayed in screen adaptations.
The 2012 version is the most beautiful. The cinematography and set design was stunning! Also Keira Knightley looked so beautiful and Aaron Johnson is the most handsome Vronsky. Their chemistry was unmatched and I absolutely love how all the other dancers freeze and fade out as Anna and Vronsky dance.
I totally agree with you. If I had to pick from just these snippets which movie I would watch in full, I would choose the Keira Knightley and Aaron Johnson version.
1967 год.. Китти ( Анастасия Вертинская хороша) Вронский Лановой прекрасен, и конечно же Татьяна Самойлова сама экспрессия и точно Анна Каренина. Но и остальные варианты мне также понравились. Фильм 2017 года, модерново и действительно очень впечатляет, спасибо. Вот только Вронский ( актер) такой слащавый и противный).
1997 version is my favorite, filmed in Russia, that dancing scene filmed at Catherine Palace in St. Petersburg is candy for my eyes, the coreography, costumes are on point! And Anna looks so sweet smart and with a happy attitude, such a romantic scene quite different of what we’ve seen in Joe Wright’s version!! I think the 2012 version is the most unpleasant, the location looks shabby and poor, clothes looks cheap, the choreography is weird with those hand movements, etc… etc… etc!!!!
Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s Vronsky looks like the parody of himself. Marceau is adorable and Bean so sexy - this little movement of his head when lying eyes on her is overwhelmingly erotic and fantastic acting. But the man can’t dance! I’m sorry, but he moves as stiff as a rock - shouldn’t there be someone on the film set to advise him? Especially when the ball scene is one of the most crucial ones ? Don’t get me wrong, I think he is a stunning actor and a most handsome man but Marceau moving so gracefully makes him look really odd. Thanks for taking time and effort to create this long video and the texts!
Most fav 2017 - very well produced and directed with good actors...least- 2012, Kiera does not portray Anna...too young, not safisticated, and the dance movements are beyond any reality.
И они ближе всех к героям Толстого. Пусть меня закидают минусами, )) но это так. Вообще, историю Анны и Вронского почему-то воспринимают романтичной. Между ними, безусловно, было сильное чувство, но это была не романтика. Любовь, да - но и эгоизм, и нежелание понять любимого человека, и жалость к себе, и при этом глухота к чувствам другого, и жадное желание счастья любой ценой, именно ЛЮБОЙ. От такой любви кругом остаётся выжженная земля. Не случайно конец её так страшен. Всё это было в романе Толстого, и всё это сыграли Боярская и Матвеев. Но похвала им нисколько не умаляет достоинств и таланта других актёров, которых я никак не хочу обидеть.
Not Keira Knightly’s film. She is amazing but not she is not Anna Karenina. The entire version, I am guessing British, is just some overly contemporary interpretation that doesn’t feel right.
In my opinion the 2012 enactment of the dance scene, by Kiera Knightley and Aaron is by far the best version. The sexual tension between Vronsky and Anna, and the growing distress of Kitty, were almost palpable. In the 1997 Anna, the ballroom looked the most realistic, but Sean Bean and Sophie Marceau were not believable as Vronsky and Anna, in my opinion; Sean Bean looked like a farmhand and Sophie Marceau looked like a schoolteacher. The 1967 version was by far the worst, it wasn't filmed in anything vaguely resembling a ballroom, the congregation looked as if they had all been squashed into a boutique. 2012 is the best version imo.
Of course, the closest to the book is only the last waltz performed by Liza Boyarskaya & Maxim Matveev. I can't call myself their fan, but they are good in this scene! Everything else - forgive me, but this is NOT Russian. I do not argue when Western countries make films based on novels by Western authors. But Western directors cannot convey the Russian spirit and Russian soul. Not one of them has ever succeeded. I am Russian!
Yes, Anna was wrong to choose carnal passion over her family. Just like the men and women who divorce in droves today and break the hearts of their children. We haven’t learned a thing.
That's NOT Anna Karenina Tolstoy painted in the novel. Not physically, not mentally, not AT ALL. Not to mention the author especially underlined Karenina was in purple, with violets in her hair. Do those producers and directors ever read the novel?
Die beste Version - ist sowjetische 1967 mit Samoilowa und Lanovoi - die ist unübertroffen! Alle andere sind, zwar lobenswert, aber mit Abstand schlechter!
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Editing this since this video is gaining a ton of traction right now (thank you!) and I need to answer some questions.
1) I made this video in high school, using clips I'd found on RUclips, without a full version of these movies/shows. As a result the quality is low.
2) To the annoyed Russians asking why I didn't include the 1967 Soviet production of Anna Karenina with Samoylova: this video did originally include the 1967 film, but because of copyright, I had to remove it. The first half of the 1967 film, including the waltz, is available on RUclips courtesy of Mosfilm (ruclips.net/video/Y5YutODgC0k/видео.html&ab_channel=%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%22%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BC%22). I repeat, the video DID originally include the 1967 version, but I had to remove it to keep the video up!
3) My comments on the 2012 version with Keira Knightley are overly harsh and frankly immature. Apologies. Again, I was a dumb kid when I made this.
4) A couple of you have commented that you would've liked to see the 1977 and 2013 versions. I'm sorry I didn't include them in the original video, but I've made a short video comparing just those two versions. You can watch it here: ruclips.net/video/lBGCPMV9DQs/видео.html
5) This isn't an issue for this particular video, but in many of the other compilations, I tried to translate the Russian versions into English. Because I was (see above) a dumb kid and did not really speak Russian, my translations were awful. I am aware of this. No need to comment and point it out.
Thanks for all the support on this video, and the other Anna Karenina compilations. It's fun to scroll through your comments - sorry I cannot reply to all of them! Happy holidays and all the best.
Thank you for taking time to respond to us. All your explanations are accepted, and you don't need to overemphasize that you "were immature kid". We all, Russian speakers, read this novel at high school, it was part of the program. Teachers were aware that most serious literature we were actually forced to read, and it was above our head, but educators also knew that if we didn't read at school most of us would never read at all. I read it twice and now; after watching your compilations and reading comments, I felt that at the age of 70+ I'm beginning to understand this novel. I'm watching Soviet version 1967 and will read the novel the third time.
The character of Aleksej Karenin is, in my opinion, the most complex character of all works of Tolstoy, maybe even in all Russian literature of 19th century. I see it now, but not yet ready to discuss. I will say heresy now: I believe that even Soviet great actor and producer in their 1967 version failed to render the true personality of Aleksej Karenin. His "good" part is downplayed, covered with cliche that he is a hypocrite, soulless, heartless, cold person.
And yes, thank you for respecting authorship rights of Soviet authors, very few do.
oldfashionedgrrl, I subscribed to your account, you are very interesting person. Your selection of movies is interesting, it is sad that you are not fluent in Russian - you missed the whole interesting civilization. What you touched upon is only a tip of iceberg and mostly derivatives of unique Russian-Soviet culture.
I don't think Knightley fits for this role at all. She is a good actress but ridiculous in this film. I can't stand watching it.
2) In this version (1967), focus on Kitty, Anna's dance as the second background. I love the movie very much, but this particular episode is inexpressive.
Elizaveta Boyarskaya and Maxim Matveyev (Vronskiy) were (and still are) married in real life. That is why they are looking inloved at this scene.
All those actresses and actors are about something very far from Tolstoy's Anna Karenina. That's something like western movie melodrama. Why not to show abstract from Soviet film adaptation by Aleksandr Zarkhi starring Tatyana Samoylova and Vasiliy Lanovoy which is the closest to the novel and the atmosphere of Russian life in the second half of the 19th century?!
Я уже к этому привык. Группа талантливых иностранцев организует наспех проект "Анна Каренина - Кассовый сбор Номер 11бисА", собирает парочку красивых актеров, приспосабливает музыку из Чайковского или Шостаковича, перед съемками быстро просматривают брошюру "Анна Каренина" и "Архипелаг ГУЛАГ за сорок минут на двадцати страницах" и... "Камера!".
Что? Там была советская версия? Ну так она же СОВЕТСКАЯ, там же не может быть правды! Там же "цензура"!
Все эти версии, приятный комлимент, дань признания уникального места русской литературы в мировой цивилизации, но это попыытка, и не больше. Утверждаю, надо быть россиянином, надо уметь читать и думать по-русски. Русским трудно ставить Шекспира, а англо-саксам не надо даже пробовать. Ибо русские по-крайней мере стараются понять, вкладывают огромные усилия чтобы проникнуть в замысел, а англо-саксы все нахрапом, по-верхам. А актрисы иностранные хорошие, красивые, талантливые, но.... не Ваше.
To prawda , najlepsze to oryginał
@@urszulapanasiuk4892 Строго говоря, только музыка и живопись не знают границ, а литературные жанры очень зависять от языка и исторического контекста. Да, Шопен везде Шопен, и наверное переводы Мицкевича на русский или украинский мало теряют, а вот уже проза, скажем "Пан Тадеуш" даже на русском уже не оригинал. Это неизбежно, можно продолжать пытаться экранизировать иностранные романы, но трудно ожидать чуда. Я бы сказал, экранизация романов вообще очень трудное дело.
Acorda pra Vida mulher estamos no lll Milenio...
@@YThome7 они так далеки от нас …..все хотят какого-то шоу…..нет глубины, все поверхностно….
Favorite - Sophie Marceau and Sean Bean. Thank you for this video.
You're more than welcome!
Mine too. Sophie Marceau and Sean bean.
Je vois société marceau, mais pas Anna Karenine. Désolé
@@oldfashionedgrrlничего общего с образами Толстого. Режиссерская отсебятина.
Si meravigliosi ❤
Where is the Soviet version of 1967? How could we say which one is the best if the most authentic Russian version with Samoylova and Lanovoj is not here?
Exactly!
Where can I watch? With subtitles. I am a spanish that loves the Bolshoi 💛
@@lauraformigo3023 These are both parts with English subtitles.
Anna Karenina, part 1 (1967)
ruclips.net/video/Y5YutODgC0k/видео.html
Part 2
ruclips.net/video/x5QdY1HWok0/видео.html
part 2
I would strongly suggest reading the novel, I'm sure it was translated to Spanish. All Spanish classic was translated into Russian and is very well known to Russians. Educated Russians read this novel and "War and Peace" 2-3 times over the period of their lives. Tolstoy for Russians is what M. de Cervantes for you.
@@lauraformigo3023 O! I thought you were asking about movie "Anna Karenina". As to serial "Bolshoi" I don't think it was translated into any language, sad, the dialogs are great.
@@lauraformigo3023 ruclips.net/video/Y5YutODgC0k/видео.html
There’s no 1967 version with T. Samoylova and V. Lanovoi here…
I must say, much as I like the 2017 production over-all - the 2012 staging of the waltz scene is just so intriguingly bizarre that I have to give it the thumbs up - how the actors managed to accurately perform all those incredibly strange and fascinating hand and arm gestures - together with the mind-bending choreography whereby it's Aaron Taylor-Johnson but then, at one point, Keira forcefully leading - well, it's all so very very different, but it works and, for me, insofar as the daringly strange performance invokes what is the daring strangeness of the Anna/Vronsky mutually unspoken decision exactly in the course of that waltz to pursue the passionately exciting danger of a socially illicit liaison - thx so much for this whole beautifully edited compilation of extraordinary interpretations of a timeless classic - viva Tolstoy!
The choreography is indeed mind-bending!! I remember seeing an interview with Keira Knightley, talking about just how difficult that dancing scene had been. And you're welcome-I'm so glad you enjoyed the video! :)
@@oldfashionedgrrl - thank you again for sharing your work! much appreciated :-)
@@annvroom5539 My goodness, it's my pleasure! Thank you for the kind words, they are much appreciated too :)
Стесняюсь спросить, а где же настоящая Анна? заявлены 5 экранизаций, и как неожиданно - лучшая версия всех времен и народов не представлена... как это по-западному.. а с другой стороны, если показать фильм 1967 года, где блистала Самойлова, все остальные на ее фоне будут, или похотливы, или нелепы...
Я уже к этому привык. Группа талантливых иностранцев организует наспех проект "Анна Каренина - Кассовый сбор Номер 11бисА", собирает парочку красивых актеров, приспосабливает музыку из Чайковского или Шостаковича, перед съемками быстро просматривают брошюру "Анна Каренина" и "Архипелаг ГУЛАГ за сорок минут на двадцати страницах" и... "Камера!".
Что? Там была советская версия? Ну так она же СОВЕТСКАЯ, там же не может быть правды! Там же "цензура"!
Все эти версии, приятный комлимент, дань признания уникального места русской литературы в мировой цивилизации, но это попыытка, и не больше. Утверждаю, надо быть россиянином, надо уметь читать и думать по-русски. Русским трудно ставить Шекспира, а англо-саксам не надо даже пробовать. Ибо русские по-крайней мере стараются понять, вкладывают огромные усилия чтобы проникнуть в замысел, а англо-саксы все нахрапом, по-верхам. А актрисы иностранные хорошие, красивые, талантливые, но.... не Ваше.
Mnie brakuje tej rosyjskiej atmosfery i urody Anny
@@danutapersson7558 Masz na myśli XIX wiek? Coś podobnego prawdopodobnie wydarzyło się w klasach wyższych w wielu krajach Europy. Tańczyli o tym samym, Polonets, walc stawał się modny, chyba wszyscy rozumieli się po francusku. Tak, rosyjscy klasycy, nawet krytykując, malowali dla nas atrakcyjną kulturę. Ale czy nie dziwi Was, jak w sowieckim filmie z 1967 roku tak pięknie i bez cienia ironii pokazują nabożeństwo? I ogólnie społeczeństwo szlacheckie nie jest przedstawiane w karykaturze. Prawdopodobnie należysz do mojego pokolenia. Pamiętam, że przed Wielkanocą nauczyciele przypominali nam na lekcjach: jutro jest święto religijne, niektórzy z Was mają babcie, pójdą do kościoła, ale jesteście młodzi, rozumiecie, to relikt. Nie idź, mówią, że przy kościołach pełnią dyżury nauczyciele, jak cię zobaczą, to będzie niezręcznie wytłumaczyć, co tam zrobiłeś. Tak, nawet rząd radziecki był gorszy od potęgi sztuki; w rzeczywistości rząd już w tamtych latach bardzo potrzebował sztuki rosyjskiej. Uwielbiam Andrzeja Wajdę, zachwycił mnie jego film „Tonel”, a miałem wtedy zaledwie osiem lat! Rozumiem! A później Ash i Diamond.
Похотливы - вы верно отметили.
Настоящая Анна - в романе Толстого.
I love this video and feel traitorous for wanting you to redo it and add 1935, 1977 and 2013. But this video literally made me go watch the 2017 version which I LOVED. Please keep doing these.
Oh I'm absolutely happy to redo it! Thank you for suggesting that!
2017 version is definitely my fav, the set design, costumes....perfection. I even love the unusual telling of the story. When I first watched I thought the wrong movie was playing LOL.
I completely agree, the costumes are wonderful! And I had the same reaction when I watched it! The unusual telling is very special, and I think it was quite convincing. Glad you liked the video! :)
The last one! Just Wowwww!!!!Great montage -Thank you
U didnt understand why in the version of 2012 Kitty is changing partners. Thats the whole point of the dance: kitty changes partners because Anna and Vronsky danced all night together without switching. That’s why everyone look at them and that’s why Kitty feels more and more angry and stressed as she switchs partners, because Anna and Vronsky do not. 😋
Ah, that makes sense! Thank you for explaining :)
@@oldfashionedgrrl thank you for making this wholesome video
@@macawp60 It's my pleasure!! I'm so glad you enjoyed watching it :)
Yess!!
1997 is most Romantic Anna And Wronski.
Clearly you haven't watched the soviet one. THE one and only REAL Anna.
without watching Soviet masterpiece of 1967, it is pointless to discuss this interesting attempts. Even the most talented actresses performing in these versions could not save these movies. Interesting, curious, entertaining but nothing more.
При всей моей любви к Вивиан Ли , она, не Анна Каренина.
Лучшая Анна Каренина- Татьяна Самойлова, а лучшая экранизация романа Толстого, это фильм Зархи с блистательными советскими актерами Василием Лановым, Николаем Гриценко, Майей Плисецкой и др.
Да, это единственная настоящая экранизация Толстого
❤❤❤
Самойлова тоже не подходит на эту роль. Не Анна это! Надо читать роман, чтобы понять этот характер и внешность. Анна была роковой женщиной, соблазнительницей, она легко флиртовала и умела влюблять в себя, даже Левин настолько был очарован ею, что чуть не влюбился в неё (она же намеренно его очаровывала, сама признавалась, что если бы захотела, и его бы влюбила в себя), она хотела восхищать, восхищать постоянно, блистать, быть в центре внимания. Ну какая же это Самойлова? Самойлова милая, но она не дотягивает до толстовского образа. И Анна страстная, а Самойлова нежная. И в Самойлову никакой мужчина бы не влюбился с первой встречи. Нет в ней энергии обольщения, чувственности, сексапильности. Остальные актёры безупречны
@@MarinaVV в Самойловой нет энергии? В ней истерии нет, это точно. Но страсть, пагуба, мятежность, - все это не сыграно, а прожито. Идеальная Анна.
И вы не мужчина, чтобы выносить мнение с какого взгляда в нее можно влюбиться. Красавец Лановой, игоавший Вронского, был ее мужем в тот момент. И это был бурный и страстный роман в жизни.
@@MarinaVV ВСЕ читали роман! Киноэкранизация не обязана быть копией романа. Самойлова навсегда останется лучшей Анной.
I liked your comments on the dancing scenes. Only, the "odd breathing noises" we hear at some point in the 2013 version are not those of the two lovers but of poor Kitty as she realises what's happening under her eyes.
Glad you enjoyed my comments! Thank you for explaining :)
The version with Sean Bean and Sophie Marceau is perfection!
And with Tchaikovsky ❤❤❤
No, No, No!
Советский фильм 1967 года с Самойловой и Лановым - непревзойденный на все времена, гениальнейшая экранизация Толстого всех времен и народов!
Все остальные - даже близко не могут приблизиться к этому уровню!
Согласна, то же самое написала в комментарии выше.
Ничего хорошего. А Каренина там - это жуть.
Thank you for putting this video together; it was great fun! I would recommend to you the 1977 BBC serial version of Anna K. It was mostly shot in studio so you don't get the same lushness of sets and atmosphere, but the casting was superb and I think it is the most faithful to the book by far. Thanks again for your hard work on this.
1997, Sophie's very beautiful and elegant. Love this version.
That waltz in 1967 was certainly dizzying! 😵💫
Isn't it just!
Sophie Marceau and Sean Bean so beautiful.
About Anna's black velvet ball dress. In the novel, it's described claearly, a black velvet dress with a geat deal of "Venician Lace" on it, which means it will be a "black and white" dress. However, almost every movie and TV adaptation chooses to make it a completely black one due to the mordern taste for costume. By the way, most of the dresses in the adaptations aren't velevt, perhaps because a great deal of velvet seems too heavy and old-fashioned.
I'm so glad someone noticed this!! The inaccuracies surrounding the dress have always really bothered me, particularly in the 2012 version-there the fabric looks very cheap, like some kind of silk taffeta. Some of the adaptations (1948, 1977) at least have historically accurate and very beautiful dresses, but I feel like Anna's ballgown is something a lot of directors tend to get wrong. I don't know, maybe that's just me being cranky. I do understand why the dress Tolstoy described would be totally unappealing to modern audiences, but I personally would rather have Tolstoy's lacy velvet than Wright's silk taffeta :)
@@oldfashionedgrrl The waistline in most adaptions costumes are also incorrect. During late 1860s and early 1870s, the waistline of a woman's dress was high above the lady's real waist. However, high waistline with the bustle is not something attractive for modern audience.
@@zt836 Yes, good point. I think 1870s fashion was incredibly beautiful! It's busy and frumpy to the modern eye, sure, but a story that takes place in the 1870s deserves to be shown with all the beauty of the original fashion. I think the 1997 version did a wonderful job of showcasing the beauty of the era, and I wish more adaptations used historically accurate costumes :') I don't know why more directors don't go big or go home when it comes to historical accuracy.
@@oldfashionedgrrl Even if the 1997 version's background was changed from the early 1870s to the early 1880s, the costumes are immensely magnificent. It embodies the pinnacle of costume dramas from the 1990s. 2017 version is also great compared with other versions (but still love 1997 version most).
@@zt836 Me too :) The costumes are literally breathtaking. The horse race dress and Anna's white tea gown in particular are two of my favorites. And yes, the costumes/sets in the 2017 version are really good too! I was actually surprised and impressed when I first saw a clip.
Nice video! I read the book some years ago but have seen none of these adaptations (I'm trying to understand what is the one that better embodies the atmosphere and characters of the book). I think I'll go with the Sophie Marceau one. Keira Knightley seems to be determined to spoil my favourite stories (Pride and Prejudice, Anna Karenina), she seems to only be able to play badass and brazen/cheeky characters, the "modern" idea of heroine. Anna is SO different from that!!!
I saw on RUclips the ball scene from the 2013 adaptation, that seems nice as well (elegance, good manners, chemistry between the two main characters)
I totally agree about Keira Knightley-she's the main reason I didn't love Pride and Prejudice (2005), which I thought was otherwise a pretty decent adaptation. It's like she's only ever playing Keira Knightley, instead of playing the actual characters. And yes, the 2013 version is nice! I wouldn't say it's the best adaptation, but I like Puccini as Anna. Glad you enjoyed the video!
I think the 2012- Keira Knightly- production was AWESOME! The way in which the sets transformed from one scene to the other was just sheer genius! If we are just talking about comparisons of the ball scenes i have to say that they are all well done. Remember that the earlier pre 1950 films did not have the same cameras available as the 21st century cameras. I think the 2012 version is under rated. The choreography of the ball scene is truly new, but i can see where some would not be inclined to enjoy it. To me i sum these various scenes this way: All are perfection with different signatures.
What a kind way of seeing things! I aspire to your generosity-I always tend to notice the flaws when I'm watching a film. Yes, of course, camera technology is improved greatly, but I think good technique and vision always shows through, no matter how limited the camera. And I agree, the set changes in the 2012 version are very impressive! However, I don't think the film is underrated-it's been very popular, and has more or less received critical acclaim! While it's not to my taste, I'm so glad you enjoyed it :)
2012 version is overacted on purpose . it makes sense in context of adaptation presented as a play ( for some reason which i only partially understand ) rather than as a movie or show. but out of context is looks silly.
Sorry, I have to disagree. Keira Knightly is excellent in other movies. But Anna Karenina is not for her. Anna is interesting, because she has the beauty and sexiness of a woman who knows, has already given birth, and is conscious about the restrictions of society. Sophie Marceau has this quality, the Russian lady in the last version has it too. Keira not.
My favorite version!! Lovely, Romantic dance filled with longing!!
Where is Tatyana Samoylova and Vasiliy Lanovoy? The best Anna and Vronskiy!
Vasily Lanovoy 😍😍😍😍
I tried watching the Keira Knightley version and did not make it passed the first 30 minutes! I think the whole movie was "miscast".
Where is Garbo?
@@cd3694 Made this video before I decided to include all the adaptations.
I'm not that familiar with the story of Anna Karenina, nor have I read the book. But I know something about the creative outworkings of films and what they are trying to portray. Particularly with an eccentric director like Joe Wright. I've seen several of his films and he seems to be a big fan of metaphors. His period films also tend to cater to modern-day audiences so they can understand the sensibilities of the time period since values and morals have changed since the 1800s. He did the same thing with Pride and Prejudice, like how Catherine de Bourgh knocked on the Bennett family's door at night. Realistically, even for a rich person, something like that would be despicable in those days. But calling at dusk, as described in the book, doesn't make much sense today why that action was bold in those days.
Anyhoo, I think Wright took the same liberties with the film, Anna Karenina. As for the metaphoric side of things, you ranted about how it didn't make sense for Anna and Vronsky to be in the scene alone when everything they did was in public. I think that's the point. Anna and Vronsky were too much into each other they weren't paying attention to how they looked to the others. And Kitty switching partners while Anna and Vronsky were dancing was showing how long they were dancing. From the clips I've seen, Wright was showing his metaphoric side throughout the film. I understand why you don't like Wright's version of the film. I feel that Wright's approach to classic stories is an acquired taste.
That makes sense about Kitty switching partners; thank you for explaining that. Yes, Wright certainly takes an eccentric approach. The scene with Lady Catherine in P&P 2005 is interesting to say the least (but I'm willing to overlook the inaccuracy because Judi Dench is so good)! I just can't help feeling that a lot of the main roles were miscast in the 2012 version-Anna, Vronsky, and Stiva in particular. Matthew MacFadyen was compelling in P&P 2005, but he portrays a bumbling and almost idiotic Stiva. Tolstoy's Stiva is more adept and likable. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is actually quite good as Vronsky (though those uniforms really haunt my nightmares). But Keira Knightley as Anna just doesn't butter my toast. I don't know, I haven't seen the entire film, but I've seen enough of it to feel that it doesn't represent Tolstoy's ideas very well. (Then again, I'm not Tolstoy, nor was I alive in 1878, so who knows!) I agree that Wright's directing is definitely an acquired taste. The lighting in the 2012 waltz scene is really incredible, but the strange dancing, along with the breathing sounds, just wasn't the thing for me. On the other hand, I adored Darkest Hour, and P&P 2005 is a really cute film. Anyways, thank you for watching the video and reading all my rants! Hope you have a nice day :)
@@oldfashionedgrrl Considering that I've never read Anna Karenina and have only seen clips of it, I'll take your word for it. Interestingly, many actors who played in Pride and Prejudice have also played in Anna Karenina. But, yeah, I have noticed that Wright's retake of classic stories tends to be dramatic, modernized, and metaphoric. This formula seems consistent with many of his films. My sister is a huge fan of BBC's 1995 version of Pride and Prejudice. Possibly the most faithful adaptation of the book. When Wright's version was promoted in 2004, my sister was in shock at how much was changed in his version vs the book. The more modern language and other factors. She hated it. Now many years later, she still prefers the 1995 version but has a better understanding of Wright's creative decisions. Thanks for the kind response and I hope you have a great day as well!💖😄
Фильмы Джо Райта "Гордость и предубеждение" и "Анна Каренина" для меня лучшие. Да, он во многом отступает от классического произведения, адаптирует его к современности. А почему нет? Но как он показывает чувства, страсть! Какая эротика во взглядах и жестах! В этом Джо Райту нет равных.
@@ЕленаУсынина-ш3з I agree. His movies are great if you don't take everything at face value. In many ways, films that use metaphors are deeper than films that portray everything accurately. It's like unfolding a mystery. I love it!
1997 .... by a mile. Nobody beats Sean Bean.
These interesting, though incomplete compilation of some of the versions of "Anna Karenina" would rather be called
"What is the second-best version of movie after Soviet masterpiece "Anna Karenina" of 1967?"
Kiera isn't right for the role of AK. She lacks the soft, warm sensuality described. The frousy hairstyle given her is wretched.
Sean Bean who? That's not the face of Vronsky. The 2017 version with Boyarskaya and Matveyev captures the spirit of the book perfectly.
There's a "Anna Karenina" mini-series out there somewhere. I believe I watched it in the early 1980s. I think it was a British production.
It was stunning.
The waltz with Sean Bean was by far the best.
The 1997 version is my favorite...
Definitiv von 2017 die besten und schönsten Darsteller !
The 2017 actors (Boyarskaya and Matveyev) are married in real life.
Why even bother to compare? Sophie Marceau is stunning as Anna! Perfectly nuanced performance. (Kiera Knightley came across as simply a hysterical nutcase.)
I agree, Sophie is far and away the best Anna. Keira's characterization of Anna is trite at best and downright pathetic at worst...
Agreed. Knightley and Aaron Taylor Johnson were so miscast. Unwatchable.
Both Sophie and Keira were poor depiction of Anna.
The description refers to a last version at 19:29, but the video ends at 17:39.
Fixed. Thank you!
The best looking Vronsky is Aaron Taylor-Johnson for sure! I also love Stoppard's interpretation.
Indeed
he is the worst Vronsky ever
The best looking Vronsky is from the russian version, He really looks like russian aristocrat. He even looks similar to the last tsar of Russia. They know how their nobility looked like nothing like hollywood. actresses and actors
В русском варианте играл актёр Василий Лановой. Он действительно выглядел как аристократ. Вторя его « аристократическая» роль - брат прекрасной Элен в экранизации « Войны и мира». Хотя родился он в простой деревенской семье, то есть его предки были крестьянами. Он был не просто красив, но ещё и очень талантлив. Он умер несколько лет назад. Ему было 87 лет. Он очень красиво постарел, не используя пластическую хирургию. Он был активен до конца своих дней, принимал участие во встречах с поклонниками , на которых читал стихи. Даже его голос был очень красивым, хотя ему пришлось избавляться от заикания. Во время войны его деревня была оккупирована немцами. Кто - то из них выстрел в его сторону, увидев, что на мальчике надет ремень советского офицера. Будущий актёр стал из-за этого заикаться, но ремень не снял. Позже он преподавал сценическую речь в театральном институте имени Щукина, стал профессором. Он так же много играл в театре. На родине очень любят ещё 2 фильма с его участием. « Алые паруса», режиссёр- Александр Птушко, снят в 1961 году. И фильм « Офицеры» , режиссёр- Владимир Роговой, снят в 1971 году. Так же есть запись самого известного спектакля с его участием- « Принцесса Турандот», режиссёр- Евгений Вахтангов, запись сделана в 1971 году. Не знаю, есть ли возможность посмотреть эти фильмы и запись спектакля в других странах, но я советую попробовать их поискать. Вы убедитесь, насколько многогранным был талант Василия Ланового.
@@syunya6746 Добавлю к Вашей очень уместной информации: прекрасен и не утратил значения его первый фильм - "Аттестат зрелости".
Танец в версии 2012 года неприятный и вульгарный с непонятными метаниями рук.Здесь не показали еще две постановки "Анны Карениной":там,где Анну играет Грета Гарбо и ,на мой взгляд,самая отвратительная постановка режис. Соловьева и самая отвратительная Анна, какую только можно себе представить!!!Не хочу даже вспоминать фамилию актрисы),которая сыграла Анну у Соловьева.Бездарность!
Что касается внешних данных,то самая некрасивая героиня получилась у Елизаветы Боярской,это огромный минус гримерам,потому что Лиза очень обаятельная и интересная актриса! Считаю,что лучшей постановкой(во всех отношениях) этого романа является фильм, снятый в 1967 году с Татьяной Самойловой и Василием Лановым.Хотя Вивьен Ли и Мишель Марсо тоже очень хороши!!!
Я тоже ненавижу версию 2012 года! И соглашу об фильме 1967 года. Я рада, что Вам нравилось мое видео! )
Сравнивать не хочется, они такие разные. И это прекрасно. Самойлова и Лановой (67 год) - классика, а Кира и Аарон - современное прочтение романа. Мне по душе оба варианта. Прекрасно, что каждый режиссер осуществил своё видение 👍 А ещё Сантьяго Кабрера хорош в образе Вронского. Жаль, не смогла найти этот фильм на просторах интернета.
kira ne ANN
Современное прочтение - это когда роман адаптируют к нашему дню. А там ничего не влаптировали, время было оригинальнок а люди изображали жителей 21 века. Максимально неорганично.
Kiera Knightly’s facial expressions are more of what I picture from the book & they definitely seem attracted to each other. The actress right before her clip didn’t show much chemistry or emotion, though she was generically sweet, which isn’t exactly the goal. It was hard to picture why Vronsky was enamored with her over Kitty. They had to have a narrator explain what we couldn’t see.
Marceau was THE best Anna ever. Beauty and grace personified. Knightley just awful in comparison.
No way.
The third and last are the very bests ! But other exists too.
2012 год однозначно❤️. Прекрасная пара молодых и красивых людей! Необычно снят бал. Блестящий танец, разительно отличается от всего другого. Лучший фильм, по моему мнению. Обожаю.
Кайра просто красотка и Там же мистер Дарси виде Облонского играет с Усами
Согласна с вами. Я совсем недавно посмотрела этот фильм и это стало открытием для меня, ничего подобного я не ожидала. Другой взгляд на классику. Кира и Аарон фантастически показали страсть.
@@tutnetam Кайра худая, как стиральная доска. Вальс с идиотскими выдуманными движениями руками.
@@ekawasi2126 это неважно
Not autentc Waltz.
Sean Bean and Sophie. He is by far the most handsome And the way he looks at Anna! He makes you believe he is on fire. So intense
У Шахназарова, с точки зрения режиссуры, всё безупречно. Кроме главной героини. Спорно очень. Хотя.. где ж нынче подходящую натуру возьмешь, да что б еще играть умела. Всё остальное иностранное просто ужасно. Такие ляпы, что поражаешься непрофессионализму. Не курили там, где танцуют, в бальном зале! Для этого были курительные комнаты. И не пили у всех на виду. Ну, не салун какой-нибудь, и не кабак. Первый раз вижу бальные танцы 70-х годов 19 века, где размахивают руками и выделывают ими замысловатые движения. Это время турнюров и шлейфов. Чтобы шлейф не мешал, он крепился к левой руке дамы. Не очень-то рукой помашешь
hi, Etoile! sorry to bother you, I really love your channel and I've watched this video several times, but I've noticed a mistake in your translation at minute 19:34. The orchestra's maestro is announcing the upcoming dance, which is "La valse" (the waltz), rather than saying "Lovers".
You're not bothering me at all! Thank you for pointing this out-I'll fix it as soon as I can get to my computer. I'm glad you're enjoying the videos!
I loved the 2012 version, so creative and artistic....
Isnt there also a black and white one?
Viviane Leigh?
I liked Vronsky there!
Very interesting Video.
Thank you. ❤
Favorite - Sophie Marceau and Sean Bean.
No way. This one is the best : ruclips.net/video/DWa-jiWGVQY/видео.html
Estoy completamente de acuerdo con tu opinion sobre la versión de 2017. Es mi favorita. Se siente que en verdad estan enamorados. No se siente nada forzado. Todo fluye.
You must watch the dance of the 2013 version, it was wonferful and dramatic in the precise level ❤
Thank you! I’ve read the book and seen only the version with the amazing Vivien Leigh, not the others, maybe because I don’t like that story. I think that Sophie Marceau being not the most beautiful, was the most down to earth Anna Carenjna, while Sean Bean gave us the Vronsky ideal, handsome like sin! I also liked Maxim Matveyev in 2017 version! I’d like to see Greta Garbo and John Gilbert.
@Etoie I forgot to write that I liked a lot your comments on the screen! 👏
Дурацкая челка Софи Марсо совершенно неуместна. Приличные женщины в те времена челок не носили. Странный гротескный танец с Кирой Найтли непонятно зачем такой. Лучше всего выглядит версия с Вивьен Ли 😂😂😂. Из тех что есть
Where are Samoilova and Lanovoy?
@@askold5611 I explained this in the pinned comment.
All non- Russian versions totally fail to capture the essence of the novel.Anna is Russian and no western actress looks like her.
Ни Боярская, ни Друбич тоже не передают. В мире только одна Анна - Татьяна Самойлова.
Самая лучшая версия, которая не вошла в данный клип, где играет Самойлова в главной роли Анну Каренину. Русский вариант
The 1997 version is the best....the whole movie not only this scene. The chemistry between Sophie and Sean was amazing ❤
Роман написан 1873 году, а Щелкунчик( музыка) в 1892 -это экранизация 1997года 😅😅 лучшая экранизация Анны Карениной это, конечно, 1967 год режиссер Зархи с Самойловой… здесь наиболее убедительно выглядит версия 2017 года
I think the fundamental question here is whether Vronsky and Anna were in love at this point; I say no, they were just attracted to each other. I think the 2012 version does an excellent job of showing this immediate infatuation. This is very early on in their relationship, and I think Anna is so attracted to Vronsky that she forgets herself. The frozen dancers in the background/heavy breathing illustrate that; they aren't deeply in love yet, they've barely met, they're just fascinated by each other. Vronsky is a womanizer - he doesn't think very much about women's feelings, but here (in this scene in the book), he distinguishes Anna from the other women (Kitty) that he's danced with and decides that he "has" to have her. The drama of the 2012 version illustrates this far better than the reserved 2017 version, in my personal opinion. This is passion, not quiet love. Additionally, in the book, if I'm remember correctly, this scene is told partially through Kitty's eyes. The 2012 version highlights Kitty's frustration at what she thought was going to be a perfect night getting ruined. She was so excited to dance with Vronsky, and having to watch him dance with Anna so publicly breaks her heart. The 2012 version also takes a moment to acknowledge Anna's guilt at essentially betraying this younger family member who looked up to her, and wanted Anna to like her. Kitty is very hurt by Anna's actions, and Anna knows this. The consideration of this exchange, held in equal import to Anna and Vronsky's exchange, highlights the interpersonal conflict being set up, and builds Kitty's character. I really disagree with this ranking, all respect to the creator though.
Hey, thank you for sharing your thoughts on the 2012 version! When I made this video, I hadn't seen much more of the 2012 movie, and the more I've seen of it, the more I appreciate what Joe Wright was trying to do. I still don't love the movie, but I see where he was coming from, and I do like the visual aesthetic of it (as well as the soundtrack, which I think is one of the best I've ever heard). I was super harsh on the 2012 version in this video and I'm not sure I had reason to be. Joe Wright does a really good job of illustrating to a modern audience (who may not be familiar with the novel) how shocking Anna and Vronsky's affair was. I agree with all your observations-I think the movie just isn't my kind of movie. But I'm glad you enjoyed it, and thank you for watching the video!
2012 version is overacted on purpose . it makes sense in context of adaptation presented as a play ( for some reason which i only partially understand ) rather than as a movie or show. but out of context is looks silly.
Yes!! Thank you for this!! My thoughts exactly; i think people just don't "get" most of it (and i don't blame them, i didn't the first time either) because of the whole metaphoric language or context that Wright was trying to portray that IS in the book, i think he actually did an excelent, marvellous job with this movie and that it deserved better. Also the fact that it is so intense on purpose and the whole play and theater scenery choices were because Tolstoi was making a social critic on how russian society was always fake, like they were always performing, that's why he also made the decision to represent higher classes (therefore most of the movie) on a main stage and lower classes behind the stage, while Levin's story takes place in the country (not staged, like, a real outside location), because it was not ruled by social russian norms. The "weird" dancing IMO was just a creative decision to make it more appealing and/or to represent how they "flowed" together, this level of sync is actually insane so it fits perfectly for two characters that are experiencing "lust at first sight" and connect physically uwu
@@vanyasanroman1949 well if "people just don't "get" most of it" , he didn't do a good job . also i don't know whether your interpretation of his intentions are correct or not, but if they are, they were result of ignorant simplistic narrow minded prejudices about book , what is wants to say, and russia. also his overt labeling is worthy of a children's lay or a 18th century one. and to fail to make "people get it" even with labels, is pathetic. .
@@sitting_nut most of this info is explained in the interviews w the crew and wright himself, i know this kind of adaptations aren't for everyone, but i meant that if people don't have the context (having read the book or watched the whole movie) it's easy to overlook some narrative presented, not because he did a bad job, i'm sorry you didn't like it tho, but i hope that clears some things up, like it being presented as a play:)
1997, the cast, costumes and story interpretation is the best. The most natural, the least amount of ‘posing’, the best interpretation of material and the actors conveyed emotions involved in the most authentic way. My comment goes to the entire movie, not just this part. This version gives context to actions of characters by referring to backstory and it has human element going through entire movie. That being said, Jude Law ( 2017 version) is the most authentic Karenin among all versions before and after. I remember being 15 years old, reading the novel for the first time, and feeling for him- he wanted to be loved and he truly wanted to be a good decent person. I never understood the way he was often portrayed in screen adaptations.
Sophie Marseau and Sean Bean is the best!Tolsoy was a master of expressing emotions.
The 2012 version is the most beautiful. The cinematography and set design was stunning! Also Keira Knightley looked so beautiful and Aaron Johnson is the most handsome Vronsky. Their chemistry was unmatched and I absolutely love how all the other dancers freeze and fade out as Anna and Vronsky dance.
Bad taste.
I totally agree with you. If I had to pick from just these snippets which movie I would watch in full, I would choose the Keira Knightley and Aaron Johnson version.
1967 год.. Китти ( Анастасия Вертинская хороша) Вронский Лановой прекрасен, и конечно же Татьяна Самойлова сама экспрессия и точно Анна Каренина.
Но и остальные варианты мне также понравились. Фильм 2017 года, модерново и действительно очень впечатляет, спасибо. Вот только Вронский ( актер) такой слащавый и противный).
1997 version is my favorite, filmed in Russia, that dancing scene filmed at Catherine Palace in St. Petersburg is candy for my eyes, the coreography, costumes are on point! And Anna looks so sweet smart and with a happy attitude, such a romantic scene quite different of what we’ve seen in Joe Wright’s version!! I think the 2012 version is the most unpleasant, the location looks shabby and poor, clothes looks cheap, the choreography is weird with those hand movements, etc… etc… etc!!!!
1997 is terrible adaptarion. Watch the soviet one.
I still bust a gut watching all that hand and arm flopping during the waltzing in the 2012 version.
1997 version is my favorite
Здесь нет единственной настоящей гениальной Анны Карениной - Татьяны Самойловой. Все эти актрисы - подделка, даже Вивьен Ли
Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s Vronsky looks like the parody of himself. Marceau is adorable and Bean so sexy - this little movement of his head when lying eyes on her is overwhelmingly erotic and fantastic acting. But the man can’t dance! I’m sorry, but he moves as stiff as a rock - shouldn’t there be someone on the film set to advise him? Especially when the ball scene is one of the most crucial ones ? Don’t get me wrong, I think he is a stunning actor and a most handsome man but Marceau moving so gracefully makes him look really odd. Thanks for taking time and effort to create this long video and the texts!
Китти в 1й версии 1947 - само совершенство! Прямо из романа!❤🎉
😅 n-aveau pudoare daca trebuiau sa-si ridice rochiile ? De ce le tarau pe jos ?😅😅😅
Jamais rien vu d'aussi ridicule que la version avec Keira Knightley
The last version is the best ❤
Andrey Bolkonsky - Natasha Rostova waltz ( War and Peace 1965)
Most fav 2017 - very well produced and directed with good actors...least- 2012, Kiera does not portray Anna...too young, not safisticated, and the dance movements are beyond any reality.
Mis favoritos los actores rusos Yelizabeta y Makxim, de 2017.
И они ближе всех к героям Толстого. Пусть меня закидают минусами, )) но это так. Вообще, историю Анны и Вронского почему-то воспринимают романтичной. Между ними, безусловно, было сильное чувство, но это была не романтика. Любовь, да - но и эгоизм, и нежелание понять любимого человека, и жалость к себе, и при этом глухота к чувствам другого, и жадное желание счастья любой ценой, именно ЛЮБОЙ. От такой любви кругом остаётся выжженная земля. Не случайно конец её так страшен. Всё это было в романе Толстого, и всё это сыграли Боярская и Матвеев. Но похвала им нисколько не умаляет достоинств и таланта других актёров, которых я никак не хочу обидеть.
А вот Вронский 2012 ужас!!!! Кошмар) но постановка танца великолепна. Надо посмотреть этот фильм, спасибо 🙌
А для меня Аарон Тейлор-Джонсон лучший Вронский. Эротизм, химия с Кирой Найтли. Влюбилась, прочитала роман.
Я тоже так подумала - кошмар! пока не посмотрела фильм...
Not Keira Knightly’s film. She is amazing but not she is not Anna Karenina. The entire version, I am guessing British, is just some overly contemporary interpretation that doesn’t feel right.
Not a one comes close to Tom Hiddleston and Mia W in Crimson Peak.
In my opinion the 2012 enactment of the dance scene, by Kiera Knightley and Aaron is by far the best version. The sexual tension between Vronsky and Anna, and the growing distress of Kitty, were almost palpable. In the 1997 Anna, the ballroom looked the most realistic, but Sean Bean and Sophie Marceau were not believable as Vronsky and Anna, in my opinion; Sean Bean looked like a farmhand and Sophie Marceau looked like a schoolteacher. The 1967 version was by far the worst, it wasn't filmed in anything vaguely resembling a ballroom, the congregation looked as if they had all been squashed into a boutique. 2012 is the best version imo.
I read the Book. A wonderful story ❤❤❤
2017 most reliable 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻.
2012 too fancy for my taste.
Прекрасная Вивьен Ли!
Софи Марсо и Шон Бин , как правильно подобраны артисты!
Вронский моложе Анны... чего не скажешь по этой парочке
Those odd hand gestures in the 2012 version's dance. I wonder if that is a mazurka.
Of course, the closest to the book is only the last waltz performed by Liza Boyarskaya & Maxim Matveev. I can't call myself their fan, but they are good in this scene! Everything else - forgive me, but this is NOT Russian. I do not argue when Western countries make films based on novels by Western authors. But Western directors cannot convey the Russian spirit and Russian soul. Not one of them has ever succeeded. I am Russian!
2012 is definitely different..
So fancy 🦋
Хочу смотреть только татьяну Самойлову она не заменима только она Анна Каренина не родилась еще та актриса каторая заменит ее
Yes, Anna was wrong to choose carnal passion over her family. Just like the men and women who divorce in droves today and break the hearts of their children. We haven’t learned a thing.
Yes she was wrong, that’s why Tolstoy wrote the ending the way he did.
There is no Count Vronsky but Aaron Taylor Johnson 😍😍
That's NOT Anna Karenina Tolstoy painted in the novel. Not physically, not mentally, not AT ALL.
Not to mention the author especially underlined Karenina was in purple, with violets in her hair.
Do those producers and directors ever read the novel?
Самая лучшая версия-это советская постановка
1997 Sean & Sophie for me.
Ésta escena no debe omitirse, de la novela
Vivien Leigh and Sophie Marceau are gorgeous and stunning!!! 🥰❤
Die beste Version - ist sowjetische 1967 mit Samoilowa und Lanovoi - die ist unübertroffen!
Alle andere sind, zwar lobenswert, aber mit Abstand schlechter!
DEFINITELY THE LAST ONE
Sophie Marceau es Anna Karenina