Finally starting War and Peace films/book project

[Calidore]

Nearly two years after announcing my intent, I'm finally having a go at War and Peace. To sum up, I'm first watching three filmed versions in order of increasing length: The 1956 American/Italian version (3 1/2 hours), the classic 1966-67 four-part Russian version (7 hours), and the 20-part BBC-TV serial from 1972-73 (15 hours). I'm hoping this three-stage introduction will help me remember who is who and doing what during the actual read without constantly having to stop and look people up.

First, the 1956 version, starring noted Russian actors Henry Fonda, Audrey Hepburn, and Mel Ferrer. I joke, but looking up the main cast in IMDB, I see American, English, Dutch, Italian, Czech, Austrian, and Swedish, but no Russian. Scanning the secondary cast listing, I finally find a Russian-sounding name: Dimitri Konstantinov, with the promising credit "Young Officer at Orgy" (though this being a 1950s major studio release, and PG-rated to boot, I probably shouldn't get my hopes up). Further down, I find one more: Savo Raskovitch as Czar Alexander I. That looks to be about it for authenticity, though.

From what I've read, this version seems to be the runt of the litter, especially when compared to the revered Russian version. Since I'm going into this with no preconceptions, and minimal knowledge of the original story (I only know it involves a love triangle between two men named Pierre and Andrei and a woman named Natasha, with Napoleon's invasion as a backdrop), let's see how this movie works on its own merits.

*time jump*

Having watched the film in three parts over the last three days, I can say that this may be the most un-epic epic I've ever seen. Most of the cast emoted professionally enough but it was all very stage-actey and artificial (though Herbert Lom as Napoleon was a definite win). This seemed to be a deliberate style decision, but it resulted in none of the characters feeling real, so I was never able to get really involved. There was also little sense of forward propulsion in the story, just coasting and looking at people doing their thing. I never felt any kind of build toward a climax. And the love triangle itself wasn't even much of one, since not much time was spent on the main three characters together.

I can't say how much of the lack of life was due to trims to the source material, but that shouldn't be an excuse anyway; Gone with the Wind was a pretty huge novel, and that movie still beats this one in pretty much every way. Just compare the scenes in the two movies involving the heroines dealing with the wounded.

My rating on this one: 6/10

Still, it did its job. Now I know the main characters and the basic story.

Next up: The Russians liked this movie but thought they could do better. I hope so.

[Bustrofedon]

Well I wish you bon voyage but must admit I hate to see a man watch the movies before he reads the book. I see where you're coming from, though, trying to get inundated with it. I like forming my own picture of the cast but I guess watching three films will kind of blur things and maybe even give you a four pronged apotheosis of the main characters. I read WP in 4 eye-searing days and was enthralled. Hope you like it as much as I did.

[cafolini]

I think Calidore's approach is a very good one.

[Calidore]

Well I wish you bon voyage but must admit I hate to see a man watch the movies before he reads the book. I see where you're coming from, though, trying to get inundated with it. I like forming my own picture of the cast but I guess watching three films will kind of blur things and maybe even give you a four pronged apotheosis of the main characters. I read WP in 4 eye-searing days and was enthralled. Hope you like it as much as I did.

Yeah, it does feel like trying to do something left-handed. But for a book with so many characters, all named in an unfamiliar language, I don't feel too guilty about trying to smooth the way first. It worked for me on Lord of the Rings, at least.


I think Calidore's approach is a very good one.

Thankew.

[Paulclem]

I looked up the films of the novel before and after I had read it, but I couldn't be bothered with the length of them. I think the book presents significant problems to a film, but a mofdern series - along the lines of A Game of Thrones - could work really well. My approach was to read a histor book on Napoleon's invasion - which takes up a significant part of the book- and it did help me with a perspective of the times.

I'm still on that particular journey as well. I became interested in the German invasion of Russia in WW2, and read about it, Stalingrad etc. I came across a Russian writer - Vassily Grossman - who wrote for the Red Star army newspaper during the war, and who travelled all along the front including Stalingrad. He wrote a banned book - Life and Fate - which is set during the battle of Stalingrad, but which, like war and Peace, includes a broad swathe of characters in different locations and industries. It has been compared favourably to War and Peace, and I have to agree. It is very good, and just as long.

Incidentally, it is nearly 70 years since the surrender of german forces at Stalingrad, and there will be memorials, I understand, in modern Volgograd.

[Calidore]

Actually four movies focusing on, in order, Andrei, Natasha, the Battle of Borodino, and Pierre.

This was every bit as epic as the 1956 version wasn't (though sometimes director Sergei Bondarchuk wielded the Sledgehammer of Epic a bit too forcefully, as with the numerous sky & tree shots during internal monologues). It helped that this movie had the financial backing of the Russian government and the participation of the actual Russian military in the battle scenes, plus a director who knows how do do Big--gigantic ballrooms with huge crowds, the noisy and chaotic evacuation of a burning Moscow, and a Battle of Borodino that takes up the last half of the third film and is every bit as astonishing as advertised. And no CG crowds anywhere; these were many thousands of real people who had to be choreographed and managed rather than programmed. Everything here made the 1956 version look anemic by comparison.

However, this movie did make me appreciate the older one more in one way: 1956 made a point of spelling out clearly who everyone was and what their relationships were, which I sorely needed. 1966 (understandably) seemed to assume its audience knew all that and just wanted the story. 1956 is also better with cause and effect in the story. For example, Napoleon's retreat from Moscow: In 1956, the Russian general's plan to raze all possible supplies in Napoleon's path, and to then let winter to do its work, is spelled out onscreen. We also see Napoleon's insulted reaction at the lack of reception in Moscow, and later his realization that it's a lost cause and he must retreat. In 1966, Napoleon simply makes an appearance in Moscow, then the Russian general is told he's leaving.

Interestingly, 1966 also seemed to put relationships in general on the back burner, focusing instead on the characters as individuals and on the events of the story. 1956 had some combination of Pierre, Andrei, and Natasha constantly in and enjoying each others' company, while 1966 has them spending relatively little time together. Pierre and Natasha especially seemed in 1956 to be close friends with a long history right from the beginning, but in 1966, their conversation after Natasha's breakup with Andrei and near-kidnapping seemed to indicate they were just acquaintances. This even extends to Pierre's captivity. In 1956, he strikes up a friendship with a fellow prisoner (the one with a dog), who later collapses and is shot. In 1966, the same character appears, but he's barely seen before his death, and there is no relationship with Pierre.

Here's some other thoughts I had comparing these two adaptations. It'll be interesting to compare the differences to the BBC version and the book when I get to those.

* Vyacheslav Tikhonov's Andrei was endlessly stone-faced and dour, making it hard to understand why Pierre and Natasha liked him so much. Mel Ferrer's Andrei was still basically serious but much more human. On the other hand, Henry Fonda was crashingly out of place as Pierre. Audrey Hepburn was fine as Natasha, but too much the British noble. Professional ballerina Lyudmila Saveleva may have been the best casting of all the major parts in both versions--she was small and energetic enough to convincingly act the teenager, but could summon gravitas when needed.

* The bottle-chugging soldier at the drunken revel sat on the windowsill facing out in 1966, but stood with his back to the drop and his heels over the edge in 1956, making that a bit more suspenseful. Also in 1956, Pierre actually got on the windowsill himself before being fetched by Andrei to his dying father's bedside (in what now seems to have been a nice bit of story compression)

* Different order of things: In 1956, Andrei loses his wife, then we see the dinner party where Pierre is insulted and challenges Dolokhov to a duel. in 1966, these events are reversed.

* Napoleon gets much more screen time and dialogue in 1956 (though, granted, if I got Herbert Lom as Napoleon, I'd give him all the camera time I could). One example: The scene where Andrei takes up the banner and leads his men in a charge. Napoleon comes across his body, banner still in hand, and comments on his fine death, then sees he's alive and orders him taken for for medical care by his own doctors. In 1966, Andrei has a soliloquy while lying on the battlefield, then simply shows up at his child's birth without explanation. Was this a Russian unwillingness to humanize Napoleon? In general, in 1956 Napoleon is much more of a human character, while in 1966 he's more of a foreboding presence.

* Music has more than just a backgroud part in the Russian version. Two examples: Almost an hour into the first film, some soldiers get an awesome marching song. Lyudmila Saveleva's Natasha gets to dance to a nice folk tune in the second film.

* Can't say enough about the scale of the 1966 version. Bondarchuk's ability to set everything up and execute it, and then find moments in the seeming chaos, is amazing. Some of his camera movement techniques were apparently revolutionary at the time.

* 1956 had an obligatory Hollywood smooch at the end between Pierre and Natasha. 1966 simply has them gaze at each other when Pierre reappears.

Overall, an easy 9/10

Next up: the 20-part BBC-TV version from 1972 starring a relatively young Anthony Hopkins as Pierre, plus a bunch of other people (including an even younger Colin Baker--twelve years before Doctor Who and with a mustache--as cad Anatole Kuragin).

[Drkshadow03]

I'm currently reading War and Peace. I'm about halfway through it. Like it a lot so far, although not as good as Anna Karenina, in my opinion. Observations:

1) Tolstoy takes larger than life leaders (the various emperor and rulers of Europe) and humanizes them. He shows that they're not deities made flesh as Nicholas Rostov initially perceives the Emperor, but human beings with many of the same flaws as the other characters.

2) Historical events have a lot of complex causes and depending on your position in society you'll view the causes differently. Likewise, Tolstoy parallels this latter idea in his individual characters. Many of the characters, especially the cads, view their own behavior as irreproachable. From their viewpoint, they genuinely see themselves--no matter how selfish, scandalous or unethical--as good people. Anatole Kuragin suffers from cognitive dissonance when Pierre accuses him of being a bad person in regards to his attempted affair with Natasha Rostov.

3) All of the characters are searching in one way or the other for an elusive happiness in their lives or sometimes outright for the meaning of life. This seems to be especially true for Pierre and Prince Andrew.

4) Although mostly good and enjoyable, I feel that Tolstoy flounders in his own narrative at times. There are a few chapters that don't really add anything to the larger story (like the one about Nicholas Rostov hunting with his Uncle, for example). I think that is why I like Anna Karenina better so far; it is more straightforward and most of the sections of the narrative feel necessary.

[Calidore]

I actually finished this series a couple weeks ago, but haven't gotten around to posting until now. The main thing I came away with after watching this one is that the 1966 Russian version really did seem to deliberately eliminate or downplay the personal relationships as much as possible, instead emphasizing the "bigger" stories of Russia and Russian society. The bonds between Pierre, Natasha, and Andrei; between Nikolai, Sonia, and Maria; and even the friendship that develops between Pierre and his fellow prisoner, are all back in this one and given plenty of time. Napoleon is also made a character again and given lots of screen time to show his story.

Other thoughts on this one:

* The first episode is very careful about using expository dialogue and broad, theatrical BBC acting to make clear to the viewer who everyone is, their relationships, etc. It's both showing and telling, but in this case I think the telling part is perfectly fine, as you need to assume that you have viewers unfamiliar with the story. Interestingly, one of the more wince-inducing performances in this first part ended up being IMO one of the best-played character arcs in the series: Sylvester Morand as Nikolai Rostov. He's very much the classic British upper-class twit at the beginning, but he really shows Nikolai's personal growth and maturing over the course of the series, without ever losing Nikolai's essential stiffness and inflexibility. It's very well done. Nikolai and his storylines are also much more prominent in this version than the previous two.

* When Anthony Hopkins' Pierre is introduced at the party, Hopkins very much plays up Pierre's social and physical clumsiness, but later on, when conversing one-on-one with Andrei, the tics disappear and he's at ease. Hopkins shows clearly everything you need to know about the character in a very short time. His confrontation with Colin Baker's Anatole after the foiled kidnapping of Natasha is also more violent than the previous versions. For those who'd like to watch Hannibal Lecter vs. the Doctor, here it is. Meanwhile, Alan Dobie gives us a still-serious but more human and likable Andrei, a la Mel Ferrer in 1956, rather than Vyacheslav Tikhonov's walking automaton from 1966.

* Unfortunately, Morag Hood as Natasha is every bit as wrong as the reviews all said she is. Part of the problem is that the actress, while clearly very petite, was in her late twenties and no longer able to realistically pass for a teenager; and another part is that her performance during these times is more shrill than impish. The cumulative effect is of a simple-minded, childlike adult rather than a charming and magnetic young lady. When Natasha grows into some gravitas, Hood fares better, but she still doesn't show the spark Natasha needs, and which Audrey Hepburn and Lyudmila Saveleva had no problem delivering. This has the effect of killing the central relationships of the story stone dead emotionally.

* This means that each of these filmings has one prominent wrong note among the three main characters: Morag Hood's Natasha from 1972, Vyacheslav Tikhonov's Andrei from 1966, and Henry Fonda's Pierre from 1956. Pity, you'd think that would be where they'd try hardest to get it right.

* Another character who gets much more time and depth here is Helene. In the two previous versions, she's just a mistake Pierre makes and is gone after his blowup. Here, she's shown to be as tired of him as he is of her, and she's still around long after the duel and blowup until her character's closure.

* This version definitely has the weepiest Sonia of the three. I think episode 14 was the first one where she didn't cry.

* Holy cow, were there a lot of internal monologues. Each adaptation has them, but especially here. That must be a prominent feature of the book.

* In this version, when Napoleon comes on the bodies of Andrei & co. he comments on their fine deaths rather than Andrei's specifically. Three adaptations, three different versions of this event. I'll be interested to see how it was actually done in the novel. (Also, as in 1966, Napoleon simply rides away with Andrei showing no signs of life, and Andrei later shows up at the birth of his son without explanation.)

* Another event portrayed three different ways: Andrei's initial meeting of Natasha. Here, he visits her home to get legal advice re. setting up a trust for his son.

* A couple of things I like more now about the 1956 version than I did when I first watched it: The way it adjusted some events for suspense (the windowsill scene at the revel, Pierre's almost-assassination of Napoleon) and filled in holes (Napoleon instructing his men to see that Andrei is cared for). I called it a very un-epic epic, which it still is, but I'm starting to think that more of that is the fault of the characters, who are considerably less fiery and engaging than, say, those in Gone with the Wind. Russian director Sergei Bondarchuk seems to have dealt with this by vastly increasing the size of everything and through sheer force of will (and truckloads of money from the goverment), while the Western studios, not having a deep cultural or emotional investment in the story, are stuck with presenting it as is. Makes me wonder whether Gone with the Wind would suffer if made by the BBC or a Russian studio.

* It looks like my initial, uninformed impression of War & Peace as a love triangle between Pierre, Andrei, and Natasha was wrong, at least regarding the triangle part. There's never any competition between the men, just events and opportunities. And since Pierre, unlike Andrei, never really gets a chance to court her during the story, I'm always left with the impression that they only end up together at the end out of convenience, because they're both alive and single and, well, why not? It's not exactly riveting stuff, like Scarlett and Rhett were.

That's it for the movies. Now, finally, I get to do the book itself.

[Calidore]

Five months later, I'm done. Not finished, unfortunately, but done. It's taken me this long just to reach roughly the halfway point (the failed elopement of Natasha and Anatole), because Tolstoy's overwriting and dry relating of events have made this novel an incredible chore. If much of the fat had been trimmed (for example, the entire paragraphs devoted to the internal meanings of a gesture or look), and if Tolstoy had given the impression he had some emotional involvement in his characters (besides laying bare and disdaining their weaknesses) or the situations he was relating, that would have helped. Some humor, which exists in most people but in nobody here, would have been nice as well.

I gave it the old college try, and I'm glad I saw the films, but I want these last five months back.