Da, even as a married woman, she was alone, much alone, alone in that Czarist Russia's upper-class gilded cage locked up by a highly respectable -though annoyingly sanctimonious at times- diplomat Alexei Karenin played by pre-Sherlock Holmes Basil Rathbone. Being a loving mother to her only son Sergei (Freddie Bartholomew) wasn't satisfying enough, she needed the passion and when her eyes met the dashing and handsome Count Vronsky (Fredric March), she threw herself at him as desperately if he was some running train's wheel.
I guess he whole believability of "Anna Karenina" (the movie of course, I'm not talking about the literary masterpiece from Leo Tolstoy, which I didn't read because I'm more into Tintin and Asterix), so the whole plausibility of "Anna Karenina" lies in the confidence that even during her brief romantic interlude before responsibilities and social burdens showed the "bill", she'll find enough passion in Vronsky to make up for her lethargic and loveless marriage.
The problem is that Greta Garbo (which as a cinematic monument as the book is for literature) isn't convincing as the titular Anna. One would call 'blasphemy' but Garbo is such a presence that even the feelings that can fuel her hearts look as secondary as feathers on a hat. In that movie precisely, for all director Clarence Brown's good intentions to make it a legitimate romance, she seems as much in need of passion as Nicholas II for Marx' "Capital". Garbo is a splendid actress but maybe too dignified for a role that needed more liveliness, her heart seems forever mummified except for the moments where she visits Sergei her son, but not for one instant, I did believe in her romance.
And Fredric March carries some responsibility in that failure, he's convincing as the loyal and romantic cavalier but I noticed that in March, even as a lead character, likability isn't exactly his strongest suit. In "Anna Karenina", he strikes as a man loyal to his country, capable to resist alcohol and petty temptations, a great crocket player and horse rider, but too committed to duty and a semblance of etiquette not to appear stiff and rigid in a love that is supposed to make our hearts melt. And it's only because I believe in the competence of the two actors that I'd rather withdraw the term 'cold' and say they just looked bored. The romance was boring because as soon as they loved each other, they condemned themselves to isolation and shame.
Alexei refused to divorce Anna, reminding her of her marital obligations and Vronsky couldn't afford to ruin his reputation, the romance was a dead-end and the ultimate affront to her happiness was Alexei's forbiddance to see her son. It's a cruel part all right but the irony is that no matter how hard the film tries to make a villain out of Alexei, he comes across as a noble man, boring to some degree, but loyal and principled as attached to his vexed ego as Vronsky is dedicated to his uniform. Indeed, Vronsky, after his idyllic romance will crave for more adventures and thrills, invoking the same call of honor that forced Alexei to ruin Anna's life. So it comes to the emotional climax where Anna literally begs Vronsky not to leave her alone. Seriously?
I was wondering how a woman of Anna's intelligence could really expect that Vronsky would even desert the army for her sake, Anna's biggest mistake is that she didn't understand the mechanisms of gender-driven conventions and just committed a social suicide, and everything about her romantic aspirations backfired at her in the worst possible way. She's a tragic character we got it, but there's a sort of obviousness in that failure that emerges almost as instantly as the romance itself. Anna is an isolated woman all through the picture and can only realize how women who've been wise enough to stick to their roles like her sister-in-law Dolly (Phoeve Foster) or the cute Kitty (Maureen O'Sullivan) managed to be happy, and couldn't even pretend to envy Anna who destroyed the foundations of her life because of a romantic fling. Alexei warned after all.
This is a terrific tragic romance on the paper (and what paper!) but it's also a singular case of miscasting involving two great actors, Greta Garbo whose heart was locked in a dome of crystal from the start and the cold Fredric March who didn't even try to make her sacrifice worthwhile, kind of depressing isn't it. So what is left is the typical MGM costume drama with its ballroom sequence, a few vertiginous shots on a lavish banquet and a few great sequences that didn't fool the Academy. I was surprised that it didn't garner any Oscar nominations but maybe even at that part, there were failed Oscar baits. The romance was still convincing enough to garner an entry in the American Film' Institute's Top 100 romances, a meagre consolation.
It's still one of Garbo's most memorable roles as the woman who didn't want to be alone and ended more alone than ever.
I guess he whole believability of "Anna Karenina" (the movie of course, I'm not talking about the literary masterpiece from Leo Tolstoy, which I didn't read because I'm more into Tintin and Asterix), so the whole plausibility of "Anna Karenina" lies in the confidence that even during her brief romantic interlude before responsibilities and social burdens showed the "bill", she'll find enough passion in Vronsky to make up for her lethargic and loveless marriage.
The problem is that Greta Garbo (which as a cinematic monument as the book is for literature) isn't convincing as the titular Anna. One would call 'blasphemy' but Garbo is such a presence that even the feelings that can fuel her hearts look as secondary as feathers on a hat. In that movie precisely, for all director Clarence Brown's good intentions to make it a legitimate romance, she seems as much in need of passion as Nicholas II for Marx' "Capital". Garbo is a splendid actress but maybe too dignified for a role that needed more liveliness, her heart seems forever mummified except for the moments where she visits Sergei her son, but not for one instant, I did believe in her romance.
And Fredric March carries some responsibility in that failure, he's convincing as the loyal and romantic cavalier but I noticed that in March, even as a lead character, likability isn't exactly his strongest suit. In "Anna Karenina", he strikes as a man loyal to his country, capable to resist alcohol and petty temptations, a great crocket player and horse rider, but too committed to duty and a semblance of etiquette not to appear stiff and rigid in a love that is supposed to make our hearts melt. And it's only because I believe in the competence of the two actors that I'd rather withdraw the term 'cold' and say they just looked bored. The romance was boring because as soon as they loved each other, they condemned themselves to isolation and shame.
Alexei refused to divorce Anna, reminding her of her marital obligations and Vronsky couldn't afford to ruin his reputation, the romance was a dead-end and the ultimate affront to her happiness was Alexei's forbiddance to see her son. It's a cruel part all right but the irony is that no matter how hard the film tries to make a villain out of Alexei, he comes across as a noble man, boring to some degree, but loyal and principled as attached to his vexed ego as Vronsky is dedicated to his uniform. Indeed, Vronsky, after his idyllic romance will crave for more adventures and thrills, invoking the same call of honor that forced Alexei to ruin Anna's life. So it comes to the emotional climax where Anna literally begs Vronsky not to leave her alone. Seriously?
I was wondering how a woman of Anna's intelligence could really expect that Vronsky would even desert the army for her sake, Anna's biggest mistake is that she didn't understand the mechanisms of gender-driven conventions and just committed a social suicide, and everything about her romantic aspirations backfired at her in the worst possible way. She's a tragic character we got it, but there's a sort of obviousness in that failure that emerges almost as instantly as the romance itself. Anna is an isolated woman all through the picture and can only realize how women who've been wise enough to stick to their roles like her sister-in-law Dolly (Phoeve Foster) or the cute Kitty (Maureen O'Sullivan) managed to be happy, and couldn't even pretend to envy Anna who destroyed the foundations of her life because of a romantic fling. Alexei warned after all.
This is a terrific tragic romance on the paper (and what paper!) but it's also a singular case of miscasting involving two great actors, Greta Garbo whose heart was locked in a dome of crystal from the start and the cold Fredric March who didn't even try to make her sacrifice worthwhile, kind of depressing isn't it. So what is left is the typical MGM costume drama with its ballroom sequence, a few vertiginous shots on a lavish banquet and a few great sequences that didn't fool the Academy. I was surprised that it didn't garner any Oscar nominations but maybe even at that part, there were failed Oscar baits. The romance was still convincing enough to garner an entry in the American Film' Institute's Top 100 romances, a meagre consolation.
It's still one of Garbo's most memorable roles as the woman who didn't want to be alone and ended more alone than ever.