Anna Karenina | Anna dances with Vronsky
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 вер 2024
- Turn on captions for subtitles & my silly opinions!
A little comparison of five different scenes from five different versions of Anna Karenina. None are perfect, but some are definitely better than others. Which one do you think did the famous waltz scene best? My favorite is the 2017 version-I think it's the most romantic and most historically compelling. (My least favorites are the 1948 and the 2012 ones, for personal reasons more than anything else.)
Inspired by @MistressofPemberley :)
0:00-0:05 Introduction
0:05-4:55 Anna Karenina (1948)
4:55-9:16 Anna Karenina (1967)
9:16-13:48 Anna Karenina (1997)
13:48-19:29 Anna Karenina (2012)
19:29-22:02 Anna Karenina (2017)
For those curious, here are the relevant excerpts from the scene as presented in the book:
'. . . [Kitty] saw in [Anna] the signs of that excitement of success she knew so well in herself; she saw that she was intoxicated with the delighted admiration she was exciting. She knew that feeling and knew its signs, and saw them in Anna; saw the quivering, flashing light in her eyes, and the smile of happiness and excitement unconsciously playing on her lips, and the deliberate grace, precision, and lightness of her movements. . . .
“No, it’s not the admiration of the crowd has intoxicated her, but the adoration of one. And that one? can it be he?” Every time he spoke to Anna the joyous light flashed into her eyes, and the smile of happiness curved her red lips. She seemed to make an effort to control herself, to try not to show these signs of delight, but they came out on her face of themselves. “But what of him?” Kitty looked at him and was filled with terror. What was pictured so clearly to Kitty in the mirror of Anna’s face she saw in him. What had become of his always self-possessed resolute manner, and the carelessly serene expression of his face? Now every time he turned to her, he bent his head, as though he would have fallen at her feet, and in his eyes there was nothing but humble submission and dread. “I would not offend you,” his eyes seemed every time to be saying, “but I want to save myself, and I don’t know how.” On his face was a look such as Kitty had never seen before. . . .
She saw that they felt themselves alone in that crowded room. . . .
Anna smiled, and her smile was reflected by him. She grew thoughtful, and he became serious. Some supernatural force drew Kitty’s eyes to Anna’s face. She was fascinating in her simple black dress, fascinating were her round arms with their bracelets, fascinating was her firm neck with its thread of pearls, fascinating the straying curls of her loose hair, fascinating the graceful, light movements of her little feet and hands, fascinating was that lovely face in its eagerness, but there was something terrible and cruel in her fascination. . . .
Anna did not mean to stay to supper, but the master of the house began to press her to do so.
“Nonsense, Anna Arkadyevna,” said Korsunsky, drawing her bare arm under the sleeve of his dress coat, “I’ve such an idea for a cotillion! Un bijou!”
And he moved gradually on, trying to draw her along with him. Their host smiled approvingly.
“No, I am not going to stay,” answered Anna, smiling, but in spite of her smile, both Korsunsky and the master of the house saw from her resolute tone that she would not stay.
“No; why, as it is, I have danced more at your ball in Moscow than I have all the winter in Petersburg,” said Anna, looking round at Vronsky, who stood near her. “I must rest a little before my journey.”
“Are you certainly going tomorrow then?” asked Vronsky.
“Yes, I suppose so,” answered Anna, as it were wondering at the boldness of his question; but the irrepressible, quivering brilliance of her eyes and her smile set him on fire as she said it.'
Made in June of 2022 :)
#annakarenina
#edit
#fanvidfeed
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: ua-cam.com/video/lBGCPMV9DQs/v-deo.html
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!!
Favorite - Sophie Marceau and Sean Bean. Thank you for this video.
You're more than welcome!
1997 is most Romantic Anna And Wronski.
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! :)
Definitiv von 2017 die besten und schönsten Darsteller !
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.
1997, Sophie's very beautiful and elegant. Love this version.
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.
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
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 :)
2012 is definitely different..
So fancy 🦋
That waltz in 1967 was certainly dizzying! 😵💫
Isn't it just!
Шон Бин прекрасный актер, но возраст?.. Вронскому на момент знакомства с Анной был 21 год. Моя любовь - Кира Найтли и Аарон Тейлор-Джонсон. Сумасшедшая эротика. Прекрасный танец, волшебная музыка.
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 :)
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.
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.
2017 most reliable 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻.
2012 too fancy for my taste.
The best looking Vronsky is Aaron Taylor-Johnson for sure! I also love Stoppard's interpretation.
Indeed
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!
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.
1997 version is my favorite
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.
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!
I enjoyed watching all of them but the second one was my least favourite. Most favourite was Keira Knightly- real chemistry there.
The third and last are the very bests ! But other exists too.
My favorite version!! Lovely, Romantic dance filled with longing!!
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 UA-cam 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 wonder how Director Franco Zefferelli would have filmed the Tolstoy's love story of Anna K. His genius slways brought a taste and intuitive depth of conflicts in plot with extraordinary taste of historical period time-line. How I miss his extraordinary gift for plots in the opera, film, ballet, love, passion, timing, music, history; I wonder how he was not asked to film such a great story? No favorite here.
I absolutely agree! Zefferelli's Romeo and Juliet is wonderful. Had he directed Anna Karenina, I'm sure it would've been equally amazing. I wonder the same thing about Luchino Visconti and David Lean. I think David Lean's Anna Karenina would have been incredible. Oh, what could've been!
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 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:)
12:45 holding Sophie....
2012.
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...
Samoilova masterpiece, Keira bleah
Couldn't agree more, haha
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).
I like Sophie most. But in 2017 , they had choose the better uniforms for the men.
2017
1997 Вронский ( актер) конечно хорош, не знаю,кто даже лучше Лановой или он))
The 2012 version is beautiful but very weird and with a strange choreography (aquatic dance?). Best versions: 1997 and 2017 (although I don't like Boyarskaya). 1967 is very good too, but Kitty looks too modern (too1967 fashion).
I agree about Boyarskaya-I think she was miscast-and about the 60s version. Kitty's dress is laughable. I feel bad, because the actress who plays Kitty is very pretty, but they made her look terrible in that scene!
2012! Keira x Aaron ❤️
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.
Фильм 1967 года лучшая экранизация романа!
Yes
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! )
Боярская вообще никакая! И уши ещё лопоухие! Самая лучшая Анна это Кейра Найтли
La mejor 1997, la del 2012 horrible el vals y el protagonista hombre muy femenino y ella puff nomás no.
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.
The 1997 version is my favorite...
2012.
2012...
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.
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!