Oy! I missed War and Peace discussion, ouch!…….
I am very much looking forward to the new/latest version of “War and Peace” (“War and Society”, “War and the World”? as the Russian word “mir” means all three, and still a subject of scholarly debates, to my great amusement.)
The existing 4 versions (already mentioned) are not satisfactory to me, each for different reasons.
- The Hollywood 1950’s version is grand in many respects, but has certain minuses already mentioned by others. I find Audrey Hepburn too regal for the role, and Henry Fonda too confident and projecting more integrity than the character demands.
Hollywood is always very kind and generous in idealizing and granting positive attributes to the characters in Russian classics, something I noticed in films like “Anastasia”, “Dr. Zhivago”, “Anna Karenina”……..c'est tre charmant, mais ne pas vrais! And those of us, who, from childhood to adulthood, had to from time to time scrupulously dissect each character and phrase in such works as part of heritage, have much more pessimistic and sarcastic view of them, so I have noticed in my circle of friends.
- The Russian 4-series film from 1960’s is the most accurate in content and sequence of events, but like others said, the work in total is not a fine composition. I saw this film several times, since I was 7 years old, then at 12 after I read the novel, and then few times again.
My only serious objection to casting is again what’s been mentioned often, S. Bondarchouk is too old for Bezhukhov and next to Tikhonov looks like his father. I would cast, as strange as it sounds, I. Smoktunovsky, even if he is not very tall and hefty. At the time of filming W&P he was only 20 years old, and a year and a half earlier, at the age of 18, presented a rather impressive “Hamlet”.
I find it very interesting that (a known fact) the father of Pierre Bezukhov (Earless) was based on a real character Grand Chancellor of Russia, Alexandre Bezborodko (Beardless), who very much resembles older Smoktunovsky.
Bezborodko –
http://images.aif.ru/003/153/d1f2a951235c089a20752e0e54e4fcf3.jpg
Smoktunovsky -
http://www.segodnya.ua/img/forall/users/532/53203/.png_53.png
They are almost the “same face”.
But I don’t mind the casting as much as I mind certain elements of cinematographic techniques used by Bondarchuk.
I always had very mixed feelings about Bondarchuk’s work, not as much as an actor, but as a cinematographer. I can go on and on, from his portrayal of Taras Bulba, Destiny of a Man, Serezha, to his role in Rossallini’s “Era notte a Roma”, to his film directing, and his conduct in the circle of soviet actors and other filmmakers, but that’s probably another subject.
But specifically in W&P, I do not like what I consider his intentional, or perhaps unintentional, clash of styles, obvious elements of Italian neorealism, Bergman’s long shots, and “soviet pathos” common in filming and production of literary classics. Sometimes mixtures work, but not this time, for me at least.
When the opening shots started in the first segment, and I saw aerial shots of clouds over the land, even as a teen-ager I thought it does not belong there. Watching the film later in life I was telling myself “aerial shots worked in Solaris” but not here, “clouds over the mountain range worked in Stromboli”, but just because you (Bondarchouk) worked with Rossallini, does not mean his methods applicable to the subject of W&P. Right or wrong, that’s what I thought about certain composition elements of Bondarchouk’s W&P which seemed like an artificial attempt out of Mikhalkov’s fable “Elephan the Painter”: “Взглянули гости на пейзаж и прошептали – Ералаш!”
I will give it to him, though, that the motage (editing) was excellent, and the “volume” of many scenes quite impressive, but then he had unlimited budget and free hands to spend as much as needed to compete with the Hollywood version.
I do respect Bondarchuk, at the same time, for certain other qualities as an actor and a film director, and his ability to navigate through difficult and tensed times for soviet actors and film makers in various decades of regime changes. He is definitely an important figure in Soviet film industry.
- BBC TV-series 1972/73 – Is by all means my favorite version to-date, although it is very “not-russian” but rather obviously “British in a story written by a Russian”.
I enjoyed Anthony Hopkins’ “Bezukhov” very much, watching his acting is a good reason alone to watch the film. The production was an honest and earnest effort to be as close as possible to the original script and well intended occasional copying of sceens and sets from Bondarchouk’s film, but strictly out of respect for the original, and not from lack of imagination.
Few production elements I chuckled at.
The cards used in a game between Pierre and Anatol, were produced and designed in late 1960’s and sold at many resorts for the local tourists.
http://img12.nnm.me/0/7/d/8/a/bc5a1567e03e1b52deaca122fed.jpg
The table setting in the opening scene is not Lomonosov Porcelain, or even Wedgwood (both were easily available for accuracy of the set) but a Noritake Pink Dawn Set, by a Japanese porcelain factory started in late 1890’s.
The postures and poses of the main characters are rather too Byronesque for the Russian nobility and gentry society mix of the times, who I perceive to be a little more crass even if mannered according to their understanding of good taste. Etc… But that’s being picky. I like this version very much, the acting is high quality, it’s easy to watch and nothing is annoying, to me.
- The 2007 Series are silly and inaccurate. I watched a little longer than most people here, but soon lost interest.
And now in all honesty, I must say, never liked a) Lev Tolstoy, b) War and Piece novel, c) any characters in the novel except for Bolkonsky’s Father.
Lev Tolstoy is a notable man, did a lot of good for common people, raised very interesting debates about religion, politics, economics, legal rights, etc., and wrote certainly several important works for the treasury of Russian literature.
Yet I always had my reservations about him: his motivations, his hypocrisy, his narcissism and self-importance as a driving force to many good deeds, au-contraire stands, and felt by me in his writings. In modern terms, I would describe him as a “Limousine liberal” who stood in the corner of an imaginary room, watching himself perform good deeds and make profound statements.
As it relates to his W&P work, it is quite obvious that he believes a woman’s role is Kinder, Kuche, Kirche (just as the saying goes, although Church would not be on his list), or rather let’s say “barefoot and pregnant”. He did not see a need for women to exercise their brains, but rathr to live by “feeling” instead of “intellect”. He was against women’s liberation, spoke negatively of any such attempt, and described Natasha as such brainless emotional ingenue, and therefore her character has no appeal to me. It is a conflict to me, for a man on one hand to speak of freedom and opportunities for the common people and yet limit a woman’s role in society.
His constant use of French phrases, whole paragraphs and many dialogues throughout the novel, mixed into the Russian text, is also questionable in view of his egalitarian inclinations. Yes, French was the language of Russian noble society at the time, yes, Tolstoy might have intentionally used it to indicate pretentiousness of various characters, and for other literary effects. But what about the “Russian folk” he so strongly defended and supported, who not did not speak or read French, and were pretty much illiterate? Ce que cela signifie? Quelle dommage, ce roman seulement pour les gens instruites?
I never thought of me as “folkish”, but when as a little girl I picked up his work for the first time, and here it is right in my face all this French, the very first dialogue…… what was I to do? I was angry, thinking “vous etes une vieille morte chevre, vous ne me confondez”, You “e…..ing” old dead goat, you will not confuse me! I was angry that I could not read the text right there and then. I asked parents for dictionary, they only had Russian-French. I had to buy French-Russian, and it was 2 rubles 46 kopeeks at the local “Orlenok” store. I did not have the money, and asking parents meant if they give it to you they can tell you how to behave. Those who pay, order the music. Bad trade off. I had to collect empty bottles for 3 weeks to make up 2+ rubbles, and end up reading only the Russian language parts, angry as hell… and then….. to sit for hours, hours, hours…. translating EACH of his blimey French words with a dictionary. How is this supposed to be a reading for an average child or an adult for that matter!!!?? That is not egalite for the masses! I can’t stand to even look at his face on the fotos for many reasons….
But still! Looking forward to the 2016 version. Hopefully it is good. If it is not, and that’s the 5th version, maybe the problem is with Tolstoy, that his work is so peculiar, that many top film-makers can not find the right venue.
I can't stand Natasha's character. There are countless indecent jokes about her in Russian folklore.
Some of them can be translated to get the “gist”… There is a character often used in Russian Jokes, “Prouchik Rzhevsky”, Lieutenant/Lt. Rzhevsky, a crass foul-mouthed womanizer, boozer and gambler. In jokes Lt. is often paired up with Natasha, who is clueless, innocent, frolicsome. All jokes are “below the belt” and some are extremely vulgar. But there are few, less vulgar, which can be said in fine company..
- Lt. and Natasha are at a ball dancing. He is drinking a lot and soon needs to relieve himself. He steps out into the garden, he is drunk, has hard time handling certain body part and wets his boots and bottoms of his pants. When he returns, Natasha asks: “oh! Is it rainy outside?”. Lt. replies “no! It’s windy”.
- Natasha and Princess Mary are arguing which is more painful, to give birth or to fall off a horse at full gallop. Lt. Rzhevsky walks by, and the ladies ask him what he thinks is more painful, to give birth or to fall off a horse. He replies: ”to have you testicles (pejorative “ova”) horse-kicked”.
- Natasha asks Lt.: “what are your favorite hobbies?”. Lt.: “women and hunting”. Natasha: “who do you like to hunt?”. Lt.: “women”.
- Lt. is standing in the corner with a grin and smirk on his face. Natasha asks “what are you thinking about?”. Lt. replies: “same thing you’re thinking about”. Natasha slaps his face “how dare you undress me!”.
- Natasha meets Lt. for the first time and tries to start a polite small talk: “Lt. how many children do you have?”. Lt.: “probably 14 or 15”. Natasha: “oh, how wonderful, you like children!”. Lt.: “No. I like the initial activity”.
so here's a new thread to discuss the different 'War and Peace' film adaptations.
I don't know what novel they were reading (if any) but Tolstoy's War and Peace it was not.
I'm in love with his portrayal!
