But for me, who has read the book and several versions, I think this one is unique.
It amplifies the director and writer's interpretation of the details of the story. For example, how the two people omitted from the original work fell in love with each other deeply at the dance, and how silently teased each other. For example, how did Anna lose her mind in the end? The drug in the original text was interpreted as morphine in the movie.
While there are many unique interpretations, the film's veins remain faithful to the original, with few major changes. Neither Karenin was adapted as a person who was too indifferent, nor Vronsky was adapted as a person who became bored and perfunctory towards Anna in the later period. All of them are as written in Tolstoy's original works, with distinctive but restrained kindness. In fact, this kind of loyalty to the original text is not conducive to the direct understanding of Anna's tragic story by modern audiences, because the meaning of divorce in modern times has long been different, and it is difficult for audiences to feel the contradiction of Anna. For this reason, many directors magnify the shortcomings of Karenin or Vronsky to create the perfect heroine Anna. But I think that doesn't really convey what Tolstoy wants to say.
If it is difficult to understand, it is necessary to understand it more carefully and to have a deeper understanding. Perhaps this way, it can be closer to Tolstoy's thought.
In addition, this film, whether it is Vronsky or Karenin, is the most likeable performance I have ever seen, whether it is temperament or pleasing appearance. Overall, the director made everyone lovable, not even a single villain. The birth of tragedy in this version I think is completely attributed to the times and society.
View more about Anna Karenina reviews
