User reviews

For a film that tries to pack a 900 page novel into 95 minutes, Clarence Brown's rendition of Tolstoy's masterpiece is quite impressive. Naturally, there are aspects of the story that are forced aside- too little time is spent on the relationship between Kitty and Levin (who was a self-portrait of Tolstoy)- but Brown manages to portray the affair between Anna and Vronsky with plenty of depth and emotion.

Greta Garbo, one of the greatest actresses of the 30's, is stunning in the lead. Frederic March is a little flat as Vronsky, dressed in his military uniform in almost every scene, but manages to do well with the character nonetheless. Basil Rathbone's usual grimness suits Karenin perfectly. The production design is spectacular. Brown directs his cast so that they always stand out from the scenery, clearly visible amidst the decadence and imperial settings. The ballroom scenes, where characters dance gracefully while exchanging crucial dialogue, particularly impressed me.

A delight for Garbo fans, as well as anyone who likes costume pieces or literary adaptations.

Greta Garbo first tackled Anna Karenina in the film "Love," which she made with John Gilbert. That film, however, did not follow the novel totally. Under Clarence Brown's direction, she now plays the role again opposite Frederic March as Vronsky and Basil Rathbone as Karenin.

Having seen the Vivien Leigh version as well, it's hard not to make comparisons. This version certainly moves along better than the Leigh version. Here, the Levin-Kitty (Maureen O'Sullivan) romance is no longer really a subplot, but a very minor part of the film. The production values are tremendous, as they were also in the Leigh Anna Karenina.

What the Vivien Leigh version had that this does not is Ralph Richardson's portrayal of Karenin, which is magnificent. Though Basil Rathbone is very good, no one can hold a candle to Richardson in this role, in my opinion. Rathbone is cold and authoritarian; Richardson is cold and authoritarian but pathetic, as a man who cannot love. He is also frightening. The scene where Anna sneaks in to see her child and meets Karenin upon leaving had much more tension in the Leigh film because of Richardson's quiet menace. What Rathbone does with a clipped voice and cold expression, Richardson does internally.

Apparently, for some reason, casting an appropriate Vronsky missed in both films. This is a man for whom Anna gives up the most precious thing in her life, her child, and forgoes her reputation. Frederic March, outgoing and charming, isn't quite right. Vronsky is a soldier, but he also has an element of passivity about him. Given Anna's controlling husband, she would be attracted to that. I didn't pick that up with March, and in the Leigh film, Kieron Moore was TOO passive. Also, I think Vronsky should be drop-dead gorgeous. I mean, if you're going to dump your marriage, your child, your reputation, Vronsky really ought to be a dreamboat. Since this is an MGM film, perhaps Robert Taylor would have been better: handsome, strong in voice and appearance, charming, romantic with just a touch of wimp.

The production values are magnificent, and Garbo is extremely effective in the role - beautiful, ethereal, and tragic. If she lacks anything, it is perhaps the vulnerability needed for Anna. Freddie Bartholemew is adorable as Anna's son.

I was much more involved with the characters in this Anna Karenina than in the Leigh, which was a very detached experience. This film was directed with more warmth. Very good.

Greta Garbo brings great pathos to the role of Tolstoy's tragic heroine, though it's anyone's guess why her Anna would be drawn even remotely to Frederic March's stiff, colorless Count Vronsky. Basil Rathbone, on the other hand, is all that he should be as Anna's cold, unforgiving husband and Freddie Bartholomew is quite fine as their son. It was inevitable that the complete breadth of Tolstoy's massive novel would suffer somewhat in its transfer to the screen and this is most keenly felt in the film's treatment of the secondary love story involving Kitty and Levin, which is all but discarded. Nonetheless, this MGM production, directed by Clarence Brown, is utterly involving. With the very pretty Maureen O'Sullivan as Kitty; Gyles Isham as Levin; and Reginald Owen, Constance Collier, Reginald Denny, May Robson, Ethel Griffies and Phoebe Foster.

Watching this movie you will see MGM at the height of its movie-making powers. The physical production is impeccable, the sets are amazing, the production design fantastic. The photography and all technical aspects are superb with the costuming and makeup being the very best that money could buy. All these aspects combine to make a very enjoyable production but the fatal flaw in this much condensed version of Tolstoy's classic is the casting. Frederic March brings no passion to the role of Vronsky and no-one could ever believe for a minute that Anna would give up her child and position for him. In fact it is even hard to believe that she would leave her husband at all given the totally magnetic performance by Basil Rathbone as Karenin. His is the most memorable character portrayal in the film and he acts the part with superb skill. Vronsky is immediately attracted to Anna as he watches her alight from a train and Garbo's face is suddenly revealed through a cloud of steam. This was quite a magical effect in the cinema as her face gradually appeared and filled the huge movie screen, but on video and a TV screen the effect is much diminished and her face appears rather large, plain and mask like. Garbo is also referred to as 'pretty' several times during the movie when 'attractive' would have been a better word. Her acting skills are beyond doubt however and by the climax one is genuinely moved when she watches the train pull out of the station and decides that life will no longer be worth living. You can almost read her mind in this scene which is photographed and scored to maximum effect and leaves an indelible impression.

"Anna Karenina" is based on a novel by Leo Tolstoy. I have not read Tolstoy's novel, but it is apparent from the thickness of the novel and the length of this film that this adaptation is heavily abridged. The story is simple; Anna Karenina is married to Karenin but has an affair with Vronsky.

The film features impressive sets and costumes. There are depictions of upper-class Russian rituals such as drinking games, dancing and a stage production. These are for the most part well-done, although the stage production seemed drawn out.

Greta Garbo as Anna, Fredric March as Vronsky and Basil Rathbone as Karenin lead the cast. It is an impressive roster, and all of them give solid performances, especially Rathbone and Garbo, but the characters they played were not exceptionally interesting. Freddie Bartholomew is notable as Sergei, Anna's astute young scientist of a child that has some touching scenes with Garbo.

This film is watchable and has a number of decent scenes, but never gains much momentum beyond a basic love story. Sadly I didn't form any strong attachments to the characters such that I was even indifferent to Anna's final fate at the end of the story. I'm not sure how other adaptations of the novel compare, but this one is somewhat flat despite having three accomplished performers in the lead parts.

This version of Anna Karenina has little resemblance with Tolstoi novel. In the first place, for it's simplicity. While Tolstoi novel is a complex portrait of Russian society in the end of the nineteenth century, the movie is a rather simple melodrama, in which the complex and dense characters of the novel, Levin, Kitty, Dolly and Stiva are mere extras. Anyway, I think that is impossible to make a film of 2 or 3 hours about Anna Karenina. Only on a mini format we can show the whole complexity of the plot and the emotional variations of the characters. Having that in mind, we can say that the film is very acceptable. It is not a master piece, but considering it's old age of 70 years, we can see it we some pleasure (I voted a 6). The director, Clarence Brown, begins the movie in the best way. The plan of the feast table, tracked by the camera, in which the table seems to be endless is excellent. Also, the ball is magnificent, showing all the luxury and lavishness in which the Russian high society lived those days. To all this magnificent MGM production is not minor the role of David O'Selznick. On the other hand, Greta Garbo does one more of her equal performances of alike characters. Can someone see any difference between Mata Hari, Queen Christine, Marguerite Gauthier or Anna Karenina? Only in the scenes with Freddie Bartholomew, in which she untie herself and smile, we can see that if she was allowed, she could have made other kind of characters, becoming a more versatile actress and getting a higher level on her actress career. The choice of Fredric March as Vronsky seems to me a enormous casting error. His Vronsky could nor enchant a woman and much lesser make her abandon house, husband, son and be a society pariah for the rest of her life. The performances of the supporting actors are very good, with an highlight for the young Freddie Bartholomew, for Basil Rathbone as Karenin and for May Robson as Vronsky's mother.

Anna Karenina seems to have been tailor-made for Greta Garbo to play. Ms. Garbo was always cast in these types of role that demanded a great woman's presence. Leo Tolstoy's magnificent novel is adapted with the emphasis on Anna, because the massive book, it probably took a lot of skill to adapt it for the screen.

Clarence Brown, the director, was a man who was instrumental in guiding Ms. Garbo's American career in the movies. First, as a cinematographer, then as a director, Mr. Brown, obviously, got the respect and confidence of his star, as it's clearly shown in the film.

Technically, this was a film that was well crafted. In fact, after seventy years it still has a crisp look, as shown in the great DVD version of the film. The great cinematography by William Daniels shows why this genius behind the camera was one of the best in the business. The splendor of the sets and the art direction by Cedric Gibbons added a rich texture to what comes out on the screen.

As Anna, Ms. Garbo does excellent work. As a matter of fact, her style shows some restraint as she doesn't go into those large gestures to punctuate a situation on a scene. The only thing that detracts from the film is Frederic March's Vronsky. While he was one of the best actors of his time, in here he is not as effective as in the rest of his screen work. In fact, their romance could have played differently had another actor been cast as the man who conquers Anna's heart.

The other principal roles are well played by a wonderful company that MGM put together to support the star. Basil Rathbone is perfect as Karenin, the dark figure in the novel. Freddie Bartholomew, the child actor, has some lovely moments when he is seen playing opposite Ms. Garbo. In fact, those scenes show well Anna's tender side, something that is in sharp contrast with what she ends up doing, abandoning this lovely child. Reginald Owen, one of the best character actors of the era is seen as Stiva with great charm. Maureen O'Sullivan is Kitty.

"Anna Karenina" is a film that will live forever because the combination of Greta Garbo's appeal and the great director Clarence Brown that understood her so well.

To me, Basil Rathbone is the one and only superior actor in this film. Fans might disagree, but I find Garbo rather unconvincingly playing the [in my mind] fragile and victimized Anna character. Garbo's screen presence is so strong that, combined with her voice and perhaps also due to the extreme soft-light shots, she gives the impression of a winner, a survivor, a diva. Also the direction and adaptation by Clarence Brown deserve a compliment.

In Imperial Russia, the aristocratic Anna Karenina (Greta Garbo) travels from Saint Petersburg to Moscow to visit her brother Stiva (Reginald Owen) and she meets the cavalry officer Vronsky (Fredric March), who came with Stiva to the train station to welcome his mother.

After a family reunion where Anna Karenina has a conversation with her sister-in-law Dolly (Phoebe Foster) to help to save Stiva's marriage, Anna is invited to stay for the ball. Anna Karenina is courted by Vronsky, but she decides to return to Saint Petersburg to her loveless marriage because of her beloved son Sergei (Freddie Bartholomew).

However Vronsky follows her and she introduces him to her husband Karenin (Basil Rathbone) at the train station. Vronsky woos her and soon they have a doomed love affair that will lead Anna Karenina to a tragic fate.

"Anna Karenina" (1935) is the first and the unforgettable version of Tolstoy's classic romance. Greta Garbor is perfect in the role of Anna Karenina, a beautiful and aristocratic married woman that falls in love with a man in a society repressive with the women's rights and feelings. The scene where her face appears in a cloud of steam is one of the most beautiful of the cinema history.

The grandiosity and the camera work of the initial scene showing the officer's table and the ball are still very impressive. The heartbreak conclusion of a woman destroyed by her love is very sad. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Anna Karenina"

This 1935 version of Leo Tolstoy's famous novel did pretty much what I was expecting it to -- strip the novel down to a standard, melodramatic love story.

Anna's affair with Vronsky and feud with her husband isn't the most interesting thing about Tolstoy's novel. It's how this love triangle is used to highlight aspects of Russian culture at the time, including attitudes about class, gender roles, sex, you name it. Anna isn't even the most interesting character, and though the book is named for her, she disappears for long stretches of time. The film's primary reason for existence is to showcase Greta Garbo in the title role, and she suffers as nobly as she always did, but what a dull affair the movie makes of that suffering. In the very first scene, Clarence Brown suggests that he might direct the film with something other than studio assembly line efficiency. A reverse tracking shot down the length of an opulently decked out dinner table calls attention to itself, and part of me wants to believe that this shot, visually mimicking the movement of a train between parallel tracks, was purposely used by Brown to foreshadow Anna's eventual tragedy. But this first shot is the last time Brown displays any amount of stylistic creativity, and it ends up sticking out like a sore thumb in a movie that's otherwise directed with pedestrian anonymity.

Grade: C

And also very odd. A huge novel condensed to a few pithy points. I feel Greta Garbo was seriously miscast as Anna. Somehow she lacks the air of fragility that is demanded in the role and I do not quite get what she sees in Vronksky. I found Basil Rathbone in the role of her husband far more virile and exciting, not the intent of the director, I am quite sure. Greta is beautiful, however, and Freddie as her son absolutely charming. 7 out of 10 for its curiosity value.

I'm over sixty, and it took that long to get access to seeing all of Garbo's films. This begins quite well, but quickly devolves into an attempt at "epic" film-making, and we lose the intimacy Anna gains with Vronsky which she didn't find with her husband, although her cold, stifled marriage is successfully conveyed with a terrific Basil Rathbone as Karenin.

In the previous silent version that Garbo sizzled with John Gilbert (in the role of Vronsky) in the 1927 "Love," more attention is given to the lovemaking. This 1935 version is well directed by Clarence Brown, but transitional scenes feel truncated at the expense of large set pieces (a ball, the opera, etc.).

Garbo remains imposing however, not only as a physical presence, but also as a woman whose choices will never make her happy. I found myself watching her hands as much as that gorgeous face.

Vronsky is given short shrift here. Neither his revelry which attracts a stifled Anna, nor his restlessness are ever developed. He's here and gone and she's under the tracks before we have much time to care one way or the other. The final scene with a mourning Count makes no impression (on us the audience or seemingly Frederick March the actor).

As a relic of David O. Selznick's famous lavish detailed productions, it's memorable.

I'm willing to bet that Anna Karenina was something that Greta Garbo agreed to remake because she thought she might have her same leading man again. She had done Tolstoy's troubled countess in an acclaimed silent version with John Gilbert. When Gilbert's career wouldn't rebound after Queen Christina the year before, Garbo took on Fredric March as a second choice.

It's not a bad choice, March makes a very good love 'em and leave 'em Count Vronsky. The book is nicely edited down to an acceptable movie length although it surely is better suited for a mini-series. But true to the Production Code and March's own image, he doesn't leave Anna for another woman and MGM tacks on a cop out scene at the very end where he expresses his profound regrets over the whole business.

Greta Garbo is trapped in a marriage to a career minded Basil Rathbone and is bored with the lack of romance. Along comes the dashing Count Fredric March and she leaves husband and child Freddie Bartholomew.

The whole point here is the difference in what happens. Tolstoy recognized full well the sexist frame his society operated under, but he thought it was a good thing. Women ought to know their place was his idea.

When Garbo runs off to Italy with March and then is seen publicly with him in St. Petersburg, she is shunned from polite society. March can be shed of her and his return back to his regiment is welcomed, Garbo has nowhere to go and her fate is inevitable.

Garbo captures the air of tragedy surrounding poor Anna so well, you're in tears practically the whole film. You KNOW what her fate must be yet you still watch her entranced. No wonder Anna Karenina is such an acclaimed role for her, both silent and sound versions.

Basil Rathbone is a proud member of the sexist society of Old Russia, yet his performance is also good in that you both feel his pain and hate him for not having an ounce of forgiveness for her.

Of the supporting cast, my favorite is Reginald Owen who is Garbo's brother. He's cheating on his wife with anyone in sight and then in the end HE lectures Garbo on what her duties are.

No wonder there were so many Bolshevik women.

The married Anna Karenina (Greta Garbo) falls in love with Count Vronsky (Fredric March) despite her husband's refusal to grant a divorce, and both must contend with the social repercussions.

Some have called this the perfect Garbo vehicle. I can see that. She is a star whose name and reputation exceed the films she is known for. (Ask someone if they have heard of Greta Garbo, and you will get "yes". Ask them to name a single film she was in and it might be quiet.) Here she is strong, as she should be. Garbo was never a damsel in distress.

It does not hurt that she is surrounded with a good support network. Fredric March is, of course, wonderful. And one should never underestimate Basil Rathbone, though I think people often do.

Greta Garbo looked at her latest movie ticket sales and must have realized her international fans appreciated her much more than those in the United States. Looking towards her global appeal, she loved Leo Tolstoy's 'Anna Karenina' and wanted to revisit its theme that served as the basis for an earlier movie of hers, "Love" with John Gilbert. Garbo was dissatisfied with the 1927 silent movie because of its happy ending. After some arm-twisting, she persuaded MGM to produce August 1935's "Anna Karenina," with her as the lead character. Her performance as a despondent wife stuck in an unhappy marriage earned her several prestigious awards, justifying her passion in acting in the Tolstoy tale.

David O. Selznick realized Garbo's previous two films where she played European figures drew disappointing results at the American box office. No matter how much persuasion the producer applied to Garbo, who was able to flex her muscle as MGM's major star, she wasn't budging. The actress had immersed herself in Anna Karenina and it was now too late to make an abrupt turnabout to switch to Selznick's choice in movies, "Dark Victory," a film eventually made in 1939 with Bette Davis. Playing opposite Garbo was Frederic March as Count Vronsky as her lover. As much as Garbo wanted to do the movie, March was sick of doing historic costume pictures and would do it only if the studio forced his hand. It did-and he did.

As in all Tolstoy novels, the 19th-century writer's stories are filled with multiple characters with numerous sub-plots. Screenwriter S. N. Behrman's assignment was to boil down Tolstoy's 800-page book to a simple 90-minute adaptation. Pushing most of the book's characters off to the side, he and his co-writers zeroed in on Anna, her husband, Czarist official Karenin (Basil Rathbone), her son Sergiei (Freddie Bartholomew), and her amour Vronsky. For Rathbone, his portrayal as a cold, cruel husband to Anna continued his long line of villainous characters the studio assigned to him. The veteran stage and silent film actor, first seen on the screen in 1921, had earlier played the abusive stepfather Mr. Murdstone in 1935's "David Copperfield." Paradoxically, he's known today for his role as the brilliant detective in twelve Sherlock Holmes films.

"Anna Karenina" is all about Garbo. Looking seductive on the screen, she was anything but that while filming on the set. She heard Fredric March, although happily married, had a habit of seducing his fellow actresses, especially the ones playing lead opposite of him. Not anxious to physically rebuff his advances, Greta wore smelly garlic under her dresses while eating cloves of garlic before sharing scenes with March. Her breath was so pungent it almost required the actor to wear a gas mask. But March saw another side of Garbo that others hadn't. "During the making of 'Anna Karenina, Garbo was very friendly, not always reserved," remembered the actor. "We would bounce a medicine ball back and forth during breaks, and one day she stripped to the waist to take in the sun. Then she caught herself and asked if it embarrassed me. It did not."

Garbo also had a convoluted relationship with eleven-year-old actor Freddie Bartholomew as her character's son Sergei. Initially, the two struck a sincere friendship when the production began, with Greta almost becoming a surrogate mother to the boy. The two would play games between takes and joke with each other. But the closeness was shattered one morning when Bartholomew asked Garbo for her autograph since his uncle requested one. From that day onwards, the actress was cool to him and limited their interaction solely to the scenes the two shared.

Garbo's favorite director was Clarence Brown, who ultimately made seven movies with the actress. There was a secret for handling Garbo, Brown revealed. "She was a shy person; her lack of English gave her a slight inferiority complex. I used to direct her quietly. I never gave her direction above a whisper. Nobody on the set ever knew what I said to her; she liked that. She hated to rehearse. She would have preferred to stay away until everyone else was rehearsed, then come in and do the scene." Although critic's today call Brown's direction pedestrian (movie reviewer Alfred Eaker labeled his work "ploddingly"), he does set up one brilliant opening sequence to "Anna Karenina" with a banquet. He has the camera beginning close to the head of the table and tracks slowly backwards just above the surface revealing the revelers and all the table settings. It's known as one of the most famous tracking shots in all of cinema.

"Anna Karenina" did reasonably well at the box office, especially predictably in Europe. Garbo's omission at not receiving an Academy Awards Best Actress nomination was controversial. She did win the New York Film Critics Circle Award for Best Actress for 1935. The MGM movie won the prestigious Mussolini Cup at the Venice Film Festival for the best foreign film. And the American Film Institute has ranked Garbo's movie as #42 for the Most Passionate Movie in the History of Film.

... based on Tolstoy's book, from MGM and director Clarence Brown. Greta Garbo is the title woman, a member of the Russian aristocracy in the late 19th century. She's trapped in a loveless marriage with the cold Alexei (Basil Rathbone), but she tolerates it for the sake of their young son Sergei (Freddie Bartholomew). That changes when she meets handsome soldier Count Vronsky (Fredric March). The two fall madly in love, but at much sacrifice to the rest of their lives, a burden that may prove too much to bear.

The production design is sumptuous, and the costumes top-rate. I've never read the novel, nor seen any other film versions, so I can't speak on how much or how little it diverges from the source material. If it's like many literary adaptations of the time, the differences can be quite large. The performances are good. March looks a bit severe in his military haircut, while Garbo looks much like she always does in her 30's films. Between March's and Rathbone's, I kept wondering who would have the thinnest mustache, and how much of it was drawn in.

I recorded a broadcast of this movie off of TCM and finally got around to watching it last night. The cast has many of the big names you associate with films from this era of Hollywood and while a technically proficient movie it left a lot to be desired. Garbo doesn't do much for me and casting her in the role of Anna is a bit of a stretch as I find it hard to believe she could win the attention of a dashing member of the Royal Guards. March isn't much better as her lover, as he looks very bloated. He's a lot more dashing in Anthony Adverse. Basil Rathbone gives a very strong performance as Anna's husband and comes across as both a good father, but a distant and unsympathetic husband. While I understand this movie is based on a famous novel, it surprises me that MGM would make such a depressing movie considering what was going on in the world at this time, Hollywood was definitely more upbeat during the 1930's. At the end of this movie, I couldn't help but think I was watching one of the many anti-hero movies which came out in the late 60's and 70's. I also found it disturbing that Fredric March's character got off so easy. At the very least he could have been a broken man, but instead he's lounging around with his buddy and having a few drinks.