Okay, the happy ending is awfully stupid. Happy endings can often be stupid, but most of the time they work. We want out lives to have happy endings. We want to end up with the man (or woman) that we love. And that is why we go to the movies. The rest of the film was vastly superior to the overhyped 1935 Garbo/March Anna Karenina.
Why does it work better? For one, the two leads have chemistry together.
You believe that Vronsky is the sort of man Anna would want to give up everything for. Of course, with the happy ending where the two leads are reunited, it doesn't seem as stupid because they work so well together. This, in fact, is probably the only Garbo-Gilbert film where John Gilbert's role is as built up as Garbo's. In Flesh And The Devil, the studio put him in full 'you're Rudolph Valentino's replacement, Jackie, old boy' mode and in A Woman Of Affairs he just kind of stands there and watches all the other characters destroy their lives. And don't get me started on the vastly overrated (but still rather good considering how much I hate Garbo) Queen Christina- he stands there even more than he did in AWOA.
Greta Garbo, for me, always seemed more at ease in silent films. She didn't just set her face into that unamused pout she wore 99% of the time in every sound film she ever made (bar Ninotchka). She laughed and it looked real. She was in love and it didn't look forced. She smiled and it (usually) looked genuine. However, most of the silent films that she made had just about the dumbest/ most confusing plots out there. They're hardly dumb compared to the tripe they turn out millisecondly today, but through 1920s glasses, they're just not good. She was at her best with John Gilbert, and he with her. That's why Flesh And The Devil, A Woman Of Affairs and this one are her only silent films I will ever be satisfied with- although if you're a Garbo completist, go ahead with the others. She's better than she was in the sound Era, in terms of acting as a whole and appeal in general, but her movies themselves are (somehow) much worse.
The child actor who played Anna's son in this one wasn't nearly as irritating as Freddie Bartholomew (I hope young Fred isn't that annoying all the time or else my God-). The other actors didn't really matter. Who cares?
The story they use is so far from Tolstoy's book that it's a good thing they gave it a different title (I believe I twas supposed to originally be called Heat, which is a terrible name and sounds bad even for 1927). They also gave it a different title because Garbo and Gilbert were having a love affair at the time and they advertised the film as 'Garbo and Gilbert in LOVE'. (Ha ha, funny)
It could NOT be based on the book, of course, and you'd still have yourself a fun little story.
This film didn't seem drawn out- but it was over quicker than I wanted it to be. I didn't notice the laughter in the soundtrack, but I think I muted the soundtrack (yes, yes, I know, but it was my first silent film).
Scrub the 1935 Anna Karenina out of your memory and watch this one. Much better. Garbo's less wooden.
Why does it work better? For one, the two leads have chemistry together.
You believe that Vronsky is the sort of man Anna would want to give up everything for. Of course, with the happy ending where the two leads are reunited, it doesn't seem as stupid because they work so well together. This, in fact, is probably the only Garbo-Gilbert film where John Gilbert's role is as built up as Garbo's. In Flesh And The Devil, the studio put him in full 'you're Rudolph Valentino's replacement, Jackie, old boy' mode and in A Woman Of Affairs he just kind of stands there and watches all the other characters destroy their lives. And don't get me started on the vastly overrated (but still rather good considering how much I hate Garbo) Queen Christina- he stands there even more than he did in AWOA.
Greta Garbo, for me, always seemed more at ease in silent films. She didn't just set her face into that unamused pout she wore 99% of the time in every sound film she ever made (bar Ninotchka). She laughed and it looked real. She was in love and it didn't look forced. She smiled and it (usually) looked genuine. However, most of the silent films that she made had just about the dumbest/ most confusing plots out there. They're hardly dumb compared to the tripe they turn out millisecondly today, but through 1920s glasses, they're just not good. She was at her best with John Gilbert, and he with her. That's why Flesh And The Devil, A Woman Of Affairs and this one are her only silent films I will ever be satisfied with- although if you're a Garbo completist, go ahead with the others. She's better than she was in the sound Era, in terms of acting as a whole and appeal in general, but her movies themselves are (somehow) much worse.
The child actor who played Anna's son in this one wasn't nearly as irritating as Freddie Bartholomew (I hope young Fred isn't that annoying all the time or else my God-). The other actors didn't really matter. Who cares?
The story they use is so far from Tolstoy's book that it's a good thing they gave it a different title (I believe I twas supposed to originally be called Heat, which is a terrible name and sounds bad even for 1927). They also gave it a different title because Garbo and Gilbert were having a love affair at the time and they advertised the film as 'Garbo and Gilbert in LOVE'. (Ha ha, funny)
It could NOT be based on the book, of course, and you'd still have yourself a fun little story.
This film didn't seem drawn out- but it was over quicker than I wanted it to be. I didn't notice the laughter in the soundtrack, but I think I muted the soundtrack (yes, yes, I know, but it was my first silent film).
Scrub the 1935 Anna Karenina out of your memory and watch this one. Much better. Garbo's less wooden.