I feel like no one likes this shit. I go on the imdb message boards (...........................) and read all this garbage about "wah, I don't like how there's a stage" or "bleh bleh Vronsky looks dumb". The complaints are so trivial. You don't like Aaron Taylor-Johnson as a blonde? Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay what do his crunchy ass blonde ringlets have to do with the story? Is that really affecting how you're absorbing the narrative being presented onscreen?? And I can't even deal with individuals complaining about how the movie is staged like a play. It's different. Had they done a straight-forward by the numbers adaptation you'd be complaining about lack of creativity and wondering why they even bothered. I, for one, love the way they filmed this. I love the staged shit and I looooooooooove how all kinds of random shit is just choreographed. Like there's this scene at a party and Anna and Vronsky are just talking but all their movements are made to look like a dance. The majority of the movie is like this and I thought it really captured the overdramatic mood of the material. AND WAS COOL TO LOOK AT, which is more than enough reason to be doing some shit.
I also really loved Levin. Domhnall Gleeson was super fascinating to watch. I was really into his face and ultra-gingeryness. I only read about 90 pages of Anna Karenina the book, so I was only really familiar with Levin going in to the movie. When I was - painfully - forcing myself through the novel, any Levin appearance instantly excited me. Like, yes, we're focusing on Levin again!! I love how I needed something to brighten me up after only reading ninety pages. Anywhoo! I really cared about Levin. But in the book, it seems like Levin's love for Kitty is pathetic/delusional. In the movie, it's played like Kitty just has some maturing to do before she can realize her love for him. While reading the book I felt like it was going to turn out that Levin ends up ~forever alone~ because I was really getting the impression that Kitty was just not that into him at all in any way. I should really force myself to finish the book. Is that why I love this movie and everyone hates it? Are all ~the haters~ just people with intact enough attention spans to make it through that thick ass book? And then they get to the movie and it's nothing like anything they read in that thick ass book??
Adding to the fact that I have yet to finish reading the source material (~pretending that I actually plan on someday doing this), I've also never seen any other movie adaptation. So I went into this one fresh as fuck. After my first viewing, I wasn't sure how I felt. I was only solid on the fact that I was a new Domhnall Gleeson fan. And that I really loved that block letter conversation scene thing. After my second viewing, which I sat through enraptured and shit, I was certain I loved this movie.
WHY?
Well I already mentioned the ~cool~ choreography and LEVIN. I also thought Keira brought it as Anna K, a character I only became vaguely familiar with in my attempt to read that cinderblock sized ass "novel". Novel is def not the word to use here, mi amigo. And to think I won that Scholastic Book Award thing for reading a whole lot like a damn ass geek in 5th grade. All those free Domino's personal pan pizzas were for naught. Anyway, Keira was great. OTT, but definitely necessary for the material, character, and tone of the film. I don't want some plain-faced Australian bitch coming up in here to tastefully underplay anything. Give me Keira and that face and all that tight ass corset period drama realness (ugh). Also, who was I just coming for with "plain-faced Australian bitch"? Secretly, Mia. But I love Mia. Why am I throwing shade? (blehblach). I wonder if Mia reads this popular blog. I loved Stoker, Mimi. Even though I have no real idea why. No, yes I do. So many shameful reasons I refuse to talk about right now. Later. It deserves it's own special Matthew Goode sodomized post.
AARON AS VRONSKY. Based on my super brief ventures into the musty library pages of The Book That Shall Not Be Named, I decided Vronsky looked like Gaston from Beauty and the Beast. He's probably not even described anything like that in the book, but these are Russians. No way does any Russian soldier nigga look anything like pussy ass Aaron Taylor-Johnson with that bleached ass Mexican toddler 'stache.
That being said, I was into it. I thought he was hot, and I completely understood why Anna would be eagle spreading all over town for this dude, showing out at public events and shit basically securing the loss of her child in any definitely impending custody battle. Even today that type of behavior would probably get your kid snatched happily away from you. Like, eugh, Anna, are you shouting out your lover's name at a horse race thing because he fell off his unicorn? How gauche. Save that shit for beddy time when Karenin takes out his creepy reusable condom and you need more in your weapon arsenal than a simple horrified recoil.
Speaking of creepy, horror, and recoil: Judith Law, everyone. I love gross JLaw the First. Jude and the best thing in that mess Contagion Law. Jude creepy rat freak and the best thing in Road to Perdition which was already pretty good but he made it sort of great Law. Jude in the trailer for Dom Hemingway which I have yet to see but he looks really gross so it must be amazing Law. Ew, seriously though, Judith was definitely the first JLaw. How has he not sued for the rights to the lazy name journalists can use when writing about his latest accidentally borned out of wedlock child???? Anyway, Jude was gross here. Every time he pulled out that condom I felt millions of my ovary egg things popping like popcorn (like how popcorn does) in the microwave that is my uterus due to years of putting a laptop exclusively over that area and also never sitting up straight, so...there's just a lot of intense crotchal heat going on down there at all times. Judith was great! I hope he sticks to all ugly roles from now on until his death in nine years (called it!).
Did I accomplish making a point with this post? Probably not. I usually don't. This shit is all over the place. Sort of like this movie that I am really into and I don't get why a whole bunch of other idiots aren't too. So I needed to write a shitty long rambly ass post about my frustrations with everyone and their dumb mom not agreeing with me. Definitely, though, if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it it does make a sound. Because 1, there are still birds around and shit. They can hear, dummy. And 2, sound doesn't exist only in our heads. Like, it's vibrations and stuff. It doesn't come alive only when ears are around to pick it up or whatever. What a dumb fucking question that's probably actually not really a question but like a metaphor or an allegory or some shit. No one reads this blog. I know who shot JFK. KFC. Initials too similar. Only room for one.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Hey