"The classic novel. The timeless love story. In a world of power and privilege, one woman dared to obey her heart"
-from the
1997 film version's publicity poster
Well, I'm not sure what 864 page Russian novel
they were reading, but I can practically hear the sound of the dust that used to be Leo Tolstoy's eyeballs rolling around in his decaying skull. Anna Karenina was not intended to be a love story. There's love in it of course, and of many kinds, but I believe the subject that Tolstoy was most interested in as he wrote his masterpiece was the corrosive nature of sin and its effect on the human mind. So, what did I think of Portland Center Stage's ambitious adaptation? Read on.
Aside from the fact that Anna looks like a pirate geisha in this poster, it was a great show. I wouldn't say perfect, but then again if anyone ever claims that a three hour play is as good as the novel they're lying. To be honest, I expected to be a lot less satisfied than I was. I suppose this is because I've been disappointed in every film or TV adaptation I've seen before. They always make the same two fatal flaws. Firstly, they make Karenin more cruel and repulsive than he is and Vronsky more attractive than he is to make Anna's decision seem more justifiable. Secondly, they minimize if not almost eliminate Levin's story line, which in the novel (News Flash!) takes up about half of the book! Anna and Levin are
co-protagonists, and while his story line is less of a roller coaster, I find it equally moving in it's own way and certainly not to be overlooked.
Portland Center Stage managed to avoid these two pet peeves of mine almost entirely. The biggest exception is that Karenin was reduced to a insufferable baffoon prone to violent outbursts. Karenin is one of the hardest characters to understand. Yes, he's cold and fastidious (hardly a suitable match for the passionate Anna) but his actions hint that he loves and needs Anna. For example, at one point, he does a complete turn around and decides to forgive Anna and start again as a family, including raising her newborn daughter as his own. This is Anna's last chance to give it all up and return to her family...but she blows it and runs off to Italy with Vronsky instead. After her death, Karenin does end up adopting her daughter, who is of no relation to him and will probably only serve as a reminder of the whole ordeal. Is this charity? Forgiveness? Love? Who knows, but one thing is certain: There's a lot nore going on with Anna's husband than meets the eye.
So PCS botched Karenin, but they did Vronsky pretty well. Never once in show did Vronsky seem attractive. Charming and handsome, sure, but never anything else. Nor should he be. Tolstoy deliberately doesn't let the reader see in Vronky's mind the way he does with Anna, Karenin, Levin and others. This leaves a lot of circumstances up for interpretation. Was he starting to get tired of Anna at the end, or was she just paranoid? Was his love really as all consuming as hers? To be honest, I've always been a bit disappointed in Anna for doing so much for a man who is so obviously not her equal in mind or heart. This, along with the fact of Karenin and Vronsky having the same first name, leads me conclude that Anna's infatuation had more to do with dissatisfaction with her empty marriage than with attraction to Vronsky. One thing's for sure, she wasn't thinking straight.
Levin was great, although he should have been younger. I always interpret Levin as a man in his thirties. Forty tops. Having him as an older, more mature looking man casts a different light on his actions. Instead of uncertain and conflicted almost to the point of angsty, an old Levin seems more mid life crisis. That, coupled with his wife Kitty being 18, makes the whole scenario not quite fit. Oh, and they skipped his conversion to Christianity at the end (big surprise).
Two other characters that stood out were Anna's brother Stiva Oblonsky and Levin's brother Nicholas. Oblonsky's marital troubles set the plot in motion. He is charming and likable, if slightly caddish. His character could be seen as a foil for Anna's. They both have affairs. For Anna, it is a matter of life and death, for Oblonsky, a trifling matter of no concern. And yet it is Anna who is shunned by society. This difference is
pivitol, and yet there is a certain similarity as well that helps us make sense of Anna's actions through Stiva's. Despite being the more intelligent and caring of the two, Anna shares her brother's lack of a strong moral compass. Thus it is both strange and understandable that these two characters could have grown up together. Nicholas Levin isn't a very important character, but he steals every scene with his role as the deadpan snarker. Too bad he dies.
Two more things, then I promise I'm done. The pacing was seamless and kept the action going. Characters sometimes explained themselves or the situation directly to the audience. Both of these things were done well and probably necessary to keep the whole show compact and comprehensible, but I thought they detracted from the drama at times. On a better note, the stage, lighting, and costumes were a feast for the eyes. Graceful white columns, lavish gowns, silhouettes of beautiful Russian architecture in the background, and a dusky atmosphere lent the play a great deal of elegance and grandeur.
So it's a go! If the opinions of a bookish teen theater lover are anything to go by, get your tickets
here and enjoy the show!
-cover.jpg)
