Anna Karenina [2012]

"There can only be misery or great happiness for us"

Recently I had the pleasure of seeing Anna Karenina and oh, what a treat that was, I loved it. As you might know, it tells the story of Anna, a married woman who starts a scandalous affair with a much younger man. Based on a book by Leo Tolstoi, with a screenplay by Tom Stoppard and directed by one of my favorites, Joe Wright, this wonderful Imperial Russian classic romance will enchant you, although not completely move you.

Anna, a faithful and loving woman to Alexei Karenin, a prominent figure in Russian politics, meets, in her trip to Moscow, Count Vronski, which is to be wed to Kitty, a close friend to Anna's brother, Oblonski (Matthew Macfadyen). After her departure, he realizes he can't let go and travels to Sankt Petersburg to see her again, and so things evolve into a scandalous affair that ruins, not only her married life and her reputation, but also her health. By the end, she goes crazy as she believes her love for Vronski is not enough anymore, and begins a paranoid, mood shifting phase of her life. Although their love is still strong and he does not give up on his mistress- he loves and understands her, despite all of her antics, things go south, and the end is dramatic.

As we would expect, Wright's vision and direction is what makes this movie shine- one of the most innovative, visually beautiful and interesting methods he used for Anna Karenina was the use of stages. How can I properly explain? The intermissions, the breaks from one scene to another where made as you were actually present in a theatre and you're seeing the decor move, but all done in a much more dynamic, fluid way. There is also a mix of slow and fast pace between some acts, with an almost musical-type feel to it, that made it even more charming. This combinations were all appropriately made to highlight either a character or a storyline. This definitely set the film apart in the beginning and made it more much more appealing. Unfortunately, that didn't continue throughout the whole film, and many observed and punished him for that. Still, it's a lovely method that I have rarely seem, so I was intrigued and entertained.

One other absolutely strong point is the art direction and all sets and costumes- the latter will definitely be a major contender for awards this season. Visually, few bad things can be said about it- I personally didn't find any flaws although I am sure some will. The cinematography is stunning, the use of close-ups and interesting shots makes the film much more magical and attractive and that gives the characters more life and passion. The score has the same details as Atonement, like, for example, the use of stamps as part of the orchestral piece. It works very well with the rest of the songs to create the atmosphere required for an Imperial Russian drama.

I do want to mention the dancing scenes- I particularly liked them because of how it was directed, but also because of the choreography and the lovely use of hands. It felt quite magical, like you were in a fairytale and everything floated gracefully; it all culminated with a much more frantic, angry moment of jealousy and passion, and that was beautifully scored, too.

The casting was quite on point, with few bad choices. Kera Knightley, as the main character, Anna Karenina, did an amazing job, but still, she didn't impress or stand out for me. Don't get me wrong, everything was very well acted, but I don't feel this is a memorable or awards worthy performance. As for Aaron Johnson, the Count Vronski, I started off thinking something's not right with him- it felt too gimmicky, not quite convinceable, but by the end I warmed up to him. He did a good job overall, especially in the second part. I think Jude Law had a challenging part, just because he had to stretch himself out of his comfort zone and it paid off- he gave a powerful, sincere performance. The standout for me was Matthew MacFayden- he shined in all of his scenes and gave a wonderful performance. I would push him for supporting actor awards, but I don't think he has any chances. The cast overall is very strong and all delivered: Kelly Macdonald, Olivia Williams, Emily Watson, Alicia Vikander, Domhnall Gleeson and so on.

As you can see, I was rather impressed by Anna Karenina- for me it worked in all levels: script, character development, performances, visual appeal, direction, entertainment, everything. But I am not saying it was perfect- one common opinion I have heard is that it isn't very consistent and that it lack some extreme emotion or passion in some parts, and I partly agree with that, but I was able to take that aside and enjoy it. I really do recommend it and I hope you like it (it will probably more entertaining for the female population than the male one, but men, please do see it).

City Lights [1931]

I must admit, I am not entirely familiar with pre-50s movies- I can literally count on my fingers how many from those decades I have seen. But yesterday I decided to broaden my view and try something nice, light and classic: "City Lights", written and directed by and starring Charlie Chaplin.

It tells the story of a vagabond who falls in love with a blind girl who sells flowers on the street. The movie takes us through his journey of trying to know and help the poor girl, all in a hilarious and dynamic way. 

Since it is a silent movie, the focus was more on the comedic side of Chaplin, which is exceptionally interesting and entertaining. He is, without a doubt, a fantastic actor and deserves all the credit he gets- his quirky movements, his extremely expressive face and his lovable character made the movie what it is. I am now looking forward to seeing more of him, but also trying out some Buster Keaton features.

I was a little bit surprised by the fact that I found myself laughing from the beginning, in the first scene with the statue, to the party scenes and more- I wasn't expecting it to be so funny. It had a lot of great moments, and you cannot not smile at most of them (some were a bit too much, in the sense that the same joke was done more than once and that made it lose its charm, but it didn't make such a difference). 

No dialogue also meant more time to observe other things; for me, the score/soundtrack was vital, as it must help and guide the viewer into the scriptwriter's wanted direction - I learned to appreciate it and the orchestra much more than I did in the past. [it also reminded me a lot of The Artist, but I guess that is normal..] 

The final scenes is one of the most romantic, sweet and incredibly endearing moments I have ever seen on screen. The way he looks at the girl after he finally notices her, the love in his eyes and the relief and happiness- all was so wonderful and touching, it felt real and it almost brought tears to my eyes. I will forever remember it!

If you haven't watched a Chaplin movie yet, I suggest you do it soon! It is magical and it helps you relax and smile! City Lights is a wonderful film that I highly recommend!

The Deep Blue Sea [2011]

The Deep Blue Sea is a character-driven movie, more or less. It doesn't focus on story development or action, it just takes us through the life of a couple and its complicated relationship, told mostly from the perspective of the woman, Hester Miller, the wife of a British judge, who starts an affair with Freddie Paige, a Royal Air Force pilot.

It begins with a 10 minute, orchestra music-fulled sequence, back and forth between the present day, where Hester, wonderfully played by Rachel Weisz, tries to comitt suicide, and the old days, when her relationship with Freddie was still fresh and lustful. From the beginning, the viewers can easily observe the beauty and darkness of the cinematography of Florian Hoffmeister, and the intricate, yet dreamy and classic direction of Terence Davies. I still remember a stunning scene which shows the lovers sharing a sweet moment in bed- the music, the way their arms and legs were intertwined, the movement of the camera-it all felt a little sureal and dramatic, and I loved it. I also liked the fact that the movie wasn't very predictable: I thought it was going somewhere, and then it completely changes, moving towards a different direction, and I am instantly intrigued (a good example is the subway scene).

She fails her attempt of taking her life, but still goes back from time to time to her past, her new, exciting, full of love past, that she now longs for. It all started with the need of a better life, one in which she wasn't bored or treated so insensitively, and Freddie just happened to be there to sweep her off her feet; it didn't hurt the fact that he was closer to her age than William, her husband, more than 20 years her senior.

But in the end, nothing in life comes easy and that is what the movie is about. She knew what she was getting into, she knew he couldn't offer what she really wanted, but Hester can't stay away, and chooses to be miserable for some time, in order to have at least a few moments of pure happiness and excitement with Freddie. She does have a chance at tranquility and love, not with Freddie, but with someone who will care for her, but she refuses, all just to hang on for a little while longer of the inexplicable connection and love to Freddie.There are clear differences between them and they both know their relationship is messed up and it probably won't last, but they still come back to each other. Case in point, after he finds her suicide letter, he leaves, but still agrees to come back to pick up his things, after she pleads to him numerous times.

The last morning spent together is awkward, but civilised; you can see and feel there is so much more to be said, but neither one takes the initiative- there is so much meaning behind their words.

The performances were good and higly comandable, but not extraordinary. Rachel Weisz and Tom Hiddleston are great individually, but I didn't buy their connection 100%- but still, the effort is there and the acting is good, especially for what the script requires. That, plus the music, editing, directing, cinematography, costumes, sets- everything fit the genre and the topic very well. It's clean!

I will be honest with you and say most will probably not like this- they will find it boring and useless. But for the few who like character-driven movies, romance, complicated relationships- this is a movie for you to see! I thought it was beautiful!

Blue Valentine [2010]

BLUE VALENTINE [2010]

Director: Derek Cianfrance

Writer: Derek Cianfrance, Cami Delavigne

Starring: Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams

Blue Valentine was one of those movies that I love....the ones whose centre is the character.

Dean and Cindy, the two protagonists, show us their story, going back and forth into their time together. I love the way the script makes those connections between the past and the present so smooth, so meaningful, tying the loose ends together.

During the award season Michelle Williams as Cindy got the better reviews and the acknowledgement for her work, but in my opinion Ryan Gosling just stole the show. He is absolutely fantastic as a young guy, with no bigger plans than just have money to eat and smoke, until he founds Cindy. The way he interprets his part is flawless...it’s not acting, well, it doesn’t seem that way. It all feels so natural, so normal, even the little gestures, like the way he plays with his daughter Frankie. He just proved to me he can do anything and I can’t wait to see more of him.

For some, it might get a little boring, as it doesn’t really have enough action, but the story is so wonderfully told, that I personally loved it. I have to repeat myself and say that the one of the most important things that makes this movie great is the normality of it all, the realness. Like, for example, the scene where Dean makes Cindy listen for the first time their song...it’s not digitally put in the scene, you can hear as if it is played on the stereo.

It is a great film! I recommend it!

What did you think? Who was better: Ryan or Michelle?