To Stylize Or Not To Stylize

          

             Leo Tolstoy first wrote the story of Anna Karenina in 1873; since then it has been made into 43 different adaptations including films, plays, operas, TV shows, ballets, songs and radio broadcasts. These statistics beg the question: why do we still care so much about a fictional Russian affair? One answer is that Anna Karenina is not necessarily a hero, no one in this film is. Anna is just a person breaking the rules and living in her own limited life, while finding and fighting love. Joe Wright’s adaptation of Anna Karenina in 2012 sought to expose the theme of love, lust and betrayal as it relates to the artificiality of life. There is no better way to conceptualize the disingenuousness of the character’s lives than to place them on not just a figurative, but also a literal stage. Joe Wright teeters on the edge of either reaching the publics attention and affection by stylizing this timeless story, or losing his audience completely in the complex setting.

            The entire film is set in and around a theater stage. The characters walk through the set leading to bedrooms or train stations, they walk up on the catwalk and are instantly in another country. As they venture to the boxes and seats, they find themselves in the middle of a horse race set squarely in the heart of the small theater. The characters themselves also move in a theatrical way, as if everything from working to making love is a dance. The stylization made Anna Karenina more apt to express the publicity and artificiality of the peoples’ lives, than would have been possible otherwise. Not only does Anna feel like she is always the center of attention, but there is literally a spot light on her face. Some of the characters feel trapped in their lives and it is exaggerated when they never really leave the main stage. Anna is born, raised and died in a world that was so limited it almost feels like an illusion. The longer the audience is trapped in her world, the more we are capable to understand how she decided that the only way out was under a train.

            The all-encompassing stylizations, however, were not suited for everyone. The reception of this film was about 61 percent positive, but the audience didn’t just seem to think it was mediocre they fell on one side or the other of a very distinct line: you either hate it, or love it. Most critics agree that the costume design and Kiera Knightley’s performance was spectacular, but that the rest didn’t fit into their understanding of this enduring tale. The film was nominated for four Academy Awards, while also nominated by Houston Film Critic’s award for “Worst Film,” and won the Alliance of Women Film Journalists award for “Movie You Wanted To Love, But Just Couldn’t.”

            Why are some people able to connect and see the beauty in Joe Wright’s adaptation, but others are not? As Kiera Knightley said in a behind the scenes clip “what is the point of doing [a film] safely… in a theater you are required to use your imagination… reality is going to be suspended, but we’re ultimately trying to hold up a very beautiful mirror to life.” About 61 percent of the audience understood the meaning behind the stage, and were able to suspend their conceptions of reality for two hours and discovered a beautiful world where movement is all ballet and life is just pretend. But the others were unable to see out of society’s tunnel vision, which suggests that the only representation of life must be realistic. Perhaps the mirror’s revelation was too uncomfortable or ugly, and just as the fox desperately tries to eat the grapes just out of his reach, then gives up and with his nose in the air says “I am sure they are sour,” we despise things that are out of our reach. Just because our world is restricted, does not mean that our imagination is just as limited.

            In the name of love, stylization, and passion, this film follows some historical traditions while boldly shattering cultural traditions. Faithfully, Wright researches, works and ultimately encompasses late 19^th century fashion with the amazing costumes, jewels and hair. The actors look like they all stepped out of a time machine and into our world. But Anna Karenina intrepidly burst through our cultural rules for a historical film, and neither forces the actors to speak in the correct language, nor shoots on location (for the vast majority of the film). Actions may not be historically correct, but the music is straight from Russia. The camera’s angles may not coincide with today’s standard for a historical piece, but we do understand the reality of life as a royal.

This is all to say that this film may have broken rules and stepped on a few toes, but it was not for nothing. This Anna Karenina may take us closer to Anna’s world than has ever been possible before. Our eyes may be seeing new things, but our hearts follow the path of all humanity: through love, passion, loss, desperation and ultimately insanity. The stylization of this adaptation is not a hindrance, but a gift through which we are able to experience pure raw emotions and struggles without the restrictions of our reality. This film allows us to live in Anna’s reality, in 19^th century Russia’s reality, and hopefully see our own prisons for what they are: just perceptions.