Posted 20 March 2011 - 08:53 PM
- - -
Aaron Johnson Offered Leads In 'Savages' And 'Anna Karenina'
EXCLUSIVE: At a time when the Hollywood movie star landscape is being made over with new faces, Kick-Ass star Aaron Johnson is cementing his place in this new order. He has been offered two lead roles in high profile films with strong scripts and A-list directors, in parts that have been pursued by all the young guys. I believe he'll do both films. . . .
Johnson has also been offered the romantic lead role alongside Keira Knightley in Anna Karenina, the adaptation of the Tolstoy classic tragic love story that has a script by Tom Stoppard and will be directed by Atonement helmer Joe Wright for Working Title. That film will likely shoot in the fall, so Johnson ought to be able to do both films. He also played the young John Lennon in Nowhere Boy.
Mike Fleming, Deadline.com, March 17
Jude Law in talks for 'Anna Karenina'
Aaron Johnson and Jude Law are in talks to join Keira Knightley in Working Title's "Anna Karenina," which Joe Wright will direct.
Tom Stoppard penned the adaptation; Working Title's Tim Bevan is producing.
In the title role of the Leo Tolstoy classic, Knightley will play a woman stuck in a loveless marriage who struggles with her attraction to a soldier. . . .
Project marks the third collaboration between Knightley and Wright; the first two, "Atonement" and "Pride and Prejudice," were also period pics.
The novel has already been adapted many times, including a 1997 Warner Bros. pic starring Sophie Marceau and Sean Bean. . . .
Variety, March 17
Posted 20 March 2011 - 11:16 PM
Posted 01 April 2011 - 03:59 AM
Still, the question remains: What can 21st century storytellers bring to the epic love story that filmmakers from a previous generation couldn't?
Wright thinks there are plenty of opportunities. He told 24 Frames that a key difference with his and Stoppard's version (the two have been meeting in recent weeks to hash out the story) has to do with expanding beyond the scope of the title character.
"The Garbo version focused very much on Anna's story," Wright said. "And what Tom has written is a kind of multi-stranded portrait of a community."
He and Stoppard of course also have to deal with a 21st century problem: Anna's affair, so daring and scandalous to 20th century eyes, might merit little more than a shrug in some circles today. . . .
Los Angeles Times, March 30
Posted 01 April 2011 - 08:58 AM
Posted 02 April 2011 - 03:12 PM
Posted 02 April 2011 - 06:52 PM
Looking back through the thread, it appears the "she" is Keira Knightly. Which makes me confused.
Posted 02 April 2011 - 07:04 PM
Posted 03 April 2011 - 08:59 AM
Posted 03 April 2011 - 09:09 AM
I'm curious to hear your arguments against SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE. It's a film I was initially resistant to, but have come to really love in the past decade or so.
Posted 07 April 2011 - 03:14 PM
‘Hanna’ Director Says Benedict Cumberbatch & Kelly Macdonald Have Joined The Cast
The Playlist, April 6
Posted 07 April 2011 - 10:00 PM
Edited by Brian D, 07 April 2011 - 10:02 PM.
Posted 07 April 2011 - 11:48 PM
Not to mention Benedict Cumberbatch. Seriously, this guy's just leaping into prominence. Or perhaps that's the Sherlock fan in me talking.
Posted 08 September 2011 - 04:12 PM
There's an internet campaign against whitewashing Akira out there (i.e. casting non-Asians in ethnically Asian roles). Is there an equivalent term we could apply to this cast?
Edited by Tyler, 08 September 2011 - 04:12 PM.
Posted 15 November 2012 - 11:45 PM
There is a stunningly beautiful moment between Lili and her husband (Constantine?), but i"m hard pressed to believe Stoppard or Wright understood it from the inside out. It sure feels to me like they want to contrast Karenin's religion with Anna's idolization of love. That strikes me as too modern a reading...something I'd expect out of Twilight rather than Joe Wright.
My heaven's what a soul Leo Tolstoy must have been. To think seriously and take seriously the Bible as more than just words and understand/imagine the depths of pain from fallenness is evidenced and experience in more than just the sordid...sometimes it is the recognition of what we are in comparison to what we are capable of in comparison to what we are called to be.
P.S. It's a beautiful film to look at--and this from the guy who thought ATONEMENT too self-consciously, "look at me" pretty. Anna's and Vronsky's waltz is right up there with Levant's break dance in Beau Travail. But still, the film frustrated me more than it delighted me.
P.P.S. I can't remember ever being this impressed with Jude Law. Terrific performance.
Edited by kenmorefield, 15 November 2012 - 11:52 PM.
Posted 16 November 2012 - 01:18 AM
I knew it. I knew it. That's exactly the reason I skipped the screening on Wednesday night. I didn't want to give up a whole evening to be bothered by exactly that.
Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:19 AM
I realize much has been written on the novel. I haven't explored any of it.
Anyway, regardless of why Anna takes up with Vronsky, the film has that beautiful reconciliation scene (I'm guessing that's the scene you're referring to) and then goes on for a long time afterward -- after I thought it would have been over. Not so, and nothing against the film that it defied my expectations on that count. I just wasn't prepared for the subsequent turn, and all the ramifications thereof.
Apparently the story of Levin (?) and Kitty has gotten short shrift in earlier film adaptations. If that's true, then the inclusion of that storyline, which shows honorable and noble behavior in contast to Anna's behavior (and her husband's to some extent, although I'm less clear on that), then this Anna Karenina is the one to see. There's so much to admire in that storyline. I loved it.
Overall, I think I'm much more favorable toward the film than you are, but as you can see, I went in without any preconceptions of what the story should be based on the book. I'm not sure what to think of it as an adaptation. Chiefly, I was put off by the theatrical staging business, which struck me as unnecessary, if at times visually arresting.
Posted 16 November 2012 - 09:35 AM
Christian, I've read parts of the book, but I don't know that I've ever plowed through the whole thing. (I have read other Tolstoy.) I mention that only because, given the expansion of the literary canon in the 80s and 90s, the notion that cultural literacy demands that there are certain books that everyone should have read ("shame on me") is one that doesn't have much traction with me. Shame, perhaps, for me, but not on me.
Actually the scene I was thinking of was the one in which
I was not particularly bothered by the notion that Anna's infatuation was not overly explained through dialogue. I thought the dance communicated that perfectly, albeit metaphorically, without words being necessary. I did find the post-recovery scenes to be meandering and hard to understand in the context of the film alone. I felt like I was watching a prequel to THE DEEP BLUE SEA. Anna's insistence in these scenes that Vronsky doesn't love her because she gives "everything" and he doesn't is clear enough, but I feel like the second half vacillates between a thesis that love is selfish and so Anna is the victim of being the only one who truly loves (blech) and the deeper truth that Anna (like all humans) is selfish and can, in fits and starts be horrified at her selfishness...that the Idolization of love is, or can be, the using of a false idol to try to justify one's own sinfulness but can't ever totally eradicate the pangs of conscience.
Edited by kenmorefield, 16 November 2012 - 09:35 AM.