Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy: the text vs. the 1997 and 2012 movies
- raharden
- Feb 17
- 11 min read
Tolstoy’s “The Death of Ivan Ilyich” is one my favorite novellas and until last year I'd only read excerpts from War and Peace and had not read anything from Anna Karenina. I spent most of the last two decades chasing the perfect science fiction fix, while comfort-reading “The Hobbit” and the hunger game series.
I began reading Anna Karenina late summer of 2025 and finished it right before Christmas. I tried to read it in logical sections and digest the story while researching the footnotes and memorizing the characters and their development thus far in the novel. I tend to read very quickly and speed read by skipping descriptive sentences, only reading the dialogue unless the setting seems important. I try to break this habit while reading classical literature because these works have symbolism woven throughout the stories that are crucial to understanding the themes being presented.
This book is now one of my favorites, rivaling my love for Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights (Charlotte and Emily Bronte books). Anna is in the title, but this novel follows a number of characters very closely. The third-person omniscient narrator allows the reader to fully understand the journey of each character as the original story was released in serials from 1873 to 1877. It basically was published like a television series spanning four seasons, with each season presenting another obstacle, scandal and move forward to ruin (Anna) or redemption (Levin). While reading the book I could not imagine a feature film could capture the complexity of the tale, but my method for literature retention has been to read the book, then watch the movie. I find that the story sticks with me when I have a visual backup, providing that visual backup has a minimum of creative license taken.
1997 or 2012? Bernard Rose or Joe Wright?
First things first, I think watching both of the movies was enjoyable. That being said, I do have an opinion on what movie portrayed the book better. I have no opinion on the choice of actors or the costumes because both movies did a good job with casting and costuming. Hollywood has that down to a science.
The opening scene in the novel shows the Oblonsky family in turmoil because Dolly’s husband, Stepan, had an affair with the French governess. Dolly says that she cannot stay with Stepan and he must leave her and the children. Stepan pleads with his sister, Anna, to come and talk sense into Dolly, so Anna leaves her eight-year-old son, Seryozha, for the first time ever to travel to Moscow. She meets Count Vronsky’s mother on the train and sees him for the first time when she arrives at the station in Moscow. While visiting the Oblonsky’s, Anna visits with the Scherbatsky family, who are Dolly’s parents and her younger sister Kitty. Kitty is courting Count Vronsky, or so she thinks, and turns down a marriage proposal from Levin, who is a close friend of the family and an influential landowner. Levin is the second protagonist in the novel and is meant to be a contrasting character to Anna.
The opening scene in the 1997 movie is Levin having a nightmare and narrating the film. This adaptation chose to have Levin be the narrator, which is interesting considering the novel uses a third-person omniscient narrator. The next scene is the train station in Moscow with Anna getting off the train and seeing Count Vronsky for the first time. In contrast, the 2012 movie begins with its iconic stage setting showing the Oblonsky family and Dolly discovering her Stiva’s (Stepan’s nickname) betrayal. The stage setting of the 2012 movie means that the film comes off as a parody of a play at times. This clashes with the occasional traditional film setting that pops up when the scene is meant to be pivotal. Both films are incredibly cinematic, but it does seem like the 2012 film is trying to be something different, so as not to be compared to previous adaptations.
Anna’s Arc:
Dance scene: The pivotal ball scene where Anna and Vronsky have an obvious and very public moment on the dance floor is reenacted beautifully in both movies but especially in the 2012 movie. The novel watches the interaction between Anna and Vronsky through Kitty’s eyes but Countess Nordston finds Kitty resting in a drawing room instead of dancing the mazurka with Vronsky and exclaims “He invited her for the mazurka right in front of me.” The 1997 film is more historically accurate but the 2012 film better captures the infatuation between Vronsky and Anna and Kitty’s horror at watching it happen.
The consummation scene: This is a short passage in the book but more visually focused on in the films. Anna is horrified with herself and Vronsky feels like a murderer. Both films use elements of these emotions, with the 1997 film having Anna repeat “You’ve murdered me, murderer!” and the 2012 film more focused on a theatrical love scene that fits the movie’s aesthetic.
The steeplechase scene: The book separates Vronsky and Anna’s perspectives into two different sections, with Vronsky’s viewpoint coming first. We get a first-hand account of the horse race and the intelligence that Frou-Frou broke her back just 500 yards from the finish line because Vronsky lost his balance and fell back into the saddle at an awkward angle as they landed on the far side of a minor ditch. Vronksky tries to get her up and kicks her once in the stomach but realizing that she has broken her back, he leaves the scene devastated. The medics shoot Frou-Frou. The 1997 scene has the race taking place on a book-accurate steeplechase course but Anna and Alexei are not in a raised box, but along the ropes on the course. It shows a much closer race that what was described in the book and has Vronsky shooting Frou-Frou. The 2012 film has the horses on a stage and it gives the impression of a horse auction, for those familiar with what that is. The audience dynamics are much more book-accurate, with conversation happening between the people seated in the box and a more clear interpretation of how Anna lost her cool after Vronsky’s accident. This scene is pivotal because it prompts Alexei to confront Anna about her behavior and she admits to the affair.
Anna’s near-death and forgiveness from Karenin: In the text, Anna has a dream/premonition that starts with a disturbing vision of a muzhik and then the revelation that she will die in childbirth. She tells Vronsky about the dream and he feels horrified by it, but outwardly scoffs.
Once Anna gives birth, she becomes very sick and sends a telegram to Alexei saying that she is dying and needs forgiveness. Let’s not forget that Alexei wants his wife to die, as the text explicitly says. The movies lightly touch on this by the expression on Alexei’s face but the 2012 movie provides such a sympathetic version of him that it’s hard to imagine him thinking such a thing. Alexei and Vronsky sit by Anna’s deathbed and she wants forgiveness for herself and Vronsky. Alexei gives into the discomfort of strong emotions and cries while he forgives them. This is such a pivotal point in the novel because you believe that Anna’s arc is going to end in death and redemption. The 1997 movie has a short scene showing this but Alexei’s actor is wooden-like and does not show the proper emotion. The 2012 movie does a better job with both dialogue and emotions, although the director does not have Alexei admit to wanting her to die.
Both movies leave out that Vronsky goes home at Alexei’s request and very deliberately shoots himself in the chest.
The visit with Seryozha: this is not often listed as a pivotal scene for Anna, but her agony at being separated from Seryozha is directly connected to the emotional unraveling that leads to morphine abuse. Anna and Vronsky return from Italy to St. Petersburg and the first thing Anna does is sneak into her old home to visit Seryozha on his 10th birthday. Anna’s relationship with her son is the most moving to me because Tolstoy represents it so fully in the text. It also emphasizes how desperate Anna was to leave Alexei because Seryozha was precious to her. The 1997 movie makes an egregious error by having Alexei berate her for coming to visit and saying “You are not welcome here.” In the book he only bowed and let Anna walk by.
Public humiliation at the opera: The 2012 movie’s stage-like portrayal of the opera is perfect even though it is opulently stylized. Although only a few individuals are paying attention to Anna and Princess Varvara, Anna perceives that she is being judged from all sides. The film perfectly captures this by having everyone turn to her with their opera glasses trained on her. The 1997 film chooses to completely skip over the opera scene. Without it, the immediate jump to Anna wanting to leave St. Petersburg makes it obvious that we have skipped some important events. A year or more in reality, as this first visit to St. Petersburg is only months after the birth of Annie and the next year is spent abroad.
Portrayal of Anna’s descent into paranoia and morphine use: Anna’s unraveling psychological and emotional state over the years of exile from society, her uncertain relationship status and her separation from Seryozha eventually lead to morphine abuse, paranoia and a deep depression. Her distant feelings for Annie are another difficult situation that the movies are not interested in addressing. The 1997 film tries to use the supposed death of Annie to justify Anna’s descent to some degree, while the 2012 movie hardly shows that the baby girl exists. Both movies emphasize the morphine use. Canonically, Anna chose to throw herself under the train with both of her children alive and well. It was the social ostracization combined by the irrational fear that Vronsky had stopped loving her that caused her to take this action. She wants revenge on him for ruining her life and she knows that her death will leave him with incurable remorse.
Levin’s arc:
Levin has the most memorable moments in the book because of his connection with the author. This is because he represents the author himself, and his is a redemption arc in contrast with Anna’s fall. Levin is also on a spiritual journey from agnostic to spiritualist, from nihilistic despair to a sense of familial purpose. Of my three most moving scenes in this novel, Levin has two and Anna has one. I already described Anna’s reunion with Seryozha and the other two are pivotal moments in Levin's arc.
His proposal and rejection from Kitty: this happens in part 1 of the novel and indeed is the second section, just a few pages in, before we are introduced to Anna on the train. Levin returns to Moscow mid-winter after showing interest in Kitty during the early part of her first social season. He informs Stepan that he is going to propose to her and Stepan lets him know that Dolly believes they will get married, but that a man named Vronsky would give him a run. The 1997 film starts right into the skating scene and includes a good amount of dialogue from the book as well as the sense of awkwardness that is present between Kitty and Levin due to the presence of Vronsky. The 2012 film has an extremely staged scene that makes it seem like Kitty was taken by surprise with Levin’s proposal, but the pacing of dialogue is perfect. The shift of moods between them as soon as Kitty declines is dramatic and exactly how I read it in the book. “It cannot be…forgive me…”
The mowing scene: this is my favorite scene in the whole book, with the descriptions so beautiful and relatable that I want to go try my own hand at the scythe. This scene develops Levin as a landowner that relates to the working class, shows how beautiful the Russian countryside is compared to the cities and it also presents hard labor as a type of therapy because your mind is quieted due to sheer exhaustion.
“He thought of nothing, desired nothing, except not to lag behind and do the best job he could. He heard only the clang of scythes and ahead of him saw Titus's erect figure moving on, the curved semicircle of the mowed space, grass and flower-heads bending down slowly and wavily about the blade of his scythe, and ahead of him the end of the swath, where rest would come.”
This passage is from page 250-251 of my Penguin edition. Perhaps being acquainted with physical labor and athletic training helps me picture this scene so vividly but as I read this scene, bumping along in the school bus on the way to a cross country meet, I felt like I’d been transported to a 19th century Russian field and was mowing alongside Levin and his Muzhiks. There’s a famous scene in Gladiator where the song “Now we are free” by Gavin Greenway plays and it shows Maximus strolling through a wheat field (much too easily I might say, as this is a dense plant). Anyway, I heard this song in my head the entire time I read this scene.
True to form, the 1997 movie does justice to this scene, being very true to the book and including a good amount of Levin’s inner dialogue. I especially love the Russian folk song that the women and children sing as they bring the afternoon meal to the workers. The 2012 scene is a bit more stylized, with close up film of the scything and a Russian folk track playing in the background. I like them both and they were highlights of the movies, just as this was a highlight in the book.
The proposal to Kitty with chalk on a card table: the 2012 film uses blocks, while the 1997 uses the chalk but both movie scenes simplify how much was actually said between the two. They would make quick work of the New York Times wordle games. I love how both movies let Levin’s and Kitty’s facial expressions communicate their feeling, just as in the book.
The birth scene: The book has an incredibly graphic an emotional description of the birth of Levin and Kitty’s first-born, Dmitri, and is one of my favorite parts of the book. The 1997 movie has a few scenes but the 2012 movie does not include it. Neither of the movies touch on the fact that Levin still does not find his purpose in life after the birth and even questions if he loves his child.
Spiritual epiphany touched on in both movies but with a different approach: Levin’s arc ends with him having a spiritual epiphany while speaking with a muzhik about the meaning of life. The 1997 movie has him finding this meaning while talking with Vronsky on the train. The 2012 movie has Levin actually talking to the Muzhik and coming to his spiritual awakening in a setting more closely resembling the book.
Finally, there are two secondary themes that are explored in the book: religion vs. modern agnosticism is a theme that is explored through Levin’s development throughout the novel. The changing political environment in Russia is another theme that may fall on deaf ears these days, but the Russian public made quite a fuss while reading it in the 1870s. The 1997 movie does a more thorough job in portraying both of these themes but I do love the scenes of the political clerks processing paperwork in the 2012 film.
Or…the mini series Anna Karenina by director Karen Shakhnazarov?
For fear of writing too long and too boring a review (we don’t want to emulate Levin’s wordy, half brother Koznyshev) I will just mention that a miniseries came out in 2017 that has a fascinating take on Anna Karenina. It is in Russian but there are very good subtitles that allow English-speakers to follow the dialogue. It is entirely from Vronsky’s perspective as told from a war hospital to Seryozha, who is now an army doctor.
Comments