Jeff Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere is one of the more vocal supporters of Joe Wright‘s Anna Karenina and he’s upset with “New York Times” critic Manohla Dargis’ characterization of the film as “a travesty with a miscast Keira Knightley” that is “tragic only in its conception and execution.” Okay, “upset” might not be the right word, “wounded” is more like it.
I, for one, agree more with Dargis on Anna than I do Wells and I won’t deny Wright’s decision to set a large portion of the film in a theatre “was an act of major artistic courage” as Wells puts it. Wells’ largest beef, however, is against Dargis’ use of the word “travesty” when talking about a film in which the director took such a major risk. Wells adds, “[It’s] needlessly cruel and brash and lacking the compassion and respect that any fair-minded critic should bring to any act of creative daring.” It’s an interesting point.
Should a critic take into account the efforts a director goes to in an attempt to buck the system and try something different even if it doesn’t altogether work?
I called the film “directorial masturbation at its most damaging” adding that it “comes across as a self-indulgent ‘art’ picture lacking heart, soul and any semblance of emotion.” To me it was a mess. Wright may have taken a risk in his decision to set so much of the film in a theatre, but that risk was never realized on the screen. It came across as trying to be artistic more than art being the driving force. Therefore, for me, it felt phony. Something of a “look what I can do” rather than the audience thinking to themselves, Wow, this is all set on a stage and yet I feel as if it is just as epic as anything I’ve ever seen. In short, I felt I could see the strings and the magic was lost.
Considering the risk, for me, doesn’t work, should I still reward the fact a “risk” was taken at all?
I actually gave Cloud Atlas credit for the narrative risks taken there, but only because the creativity worked, while others chastised it saying they felt like they were watching television and every five minutes someone kept changing the channel. Different strokes.
I know it’s honorable to respect a filmmaker’s creativity, but I think coddling it even if you don’t like it can have a negative influence on art overall. To be honest as to your impression should not be regarded as “don’t try that again, you failed,” it should be taken under consideration and, if the opinion is respected, used to better oneself down the line.
Where Wells my be fining his greatest disappointment is that Dargis’ comments come not in a review, but in a recap article for the Toronto Film Festival in which she reduces Anna Karenina down to 20 words and in them disregards the entire film and Keira Knightley. It is certainly easier to be reductive and disparaging than to write a fully fleshed out opinion piece. I would certainly accept the argument that Anna Karenina deserves a lot more of a critic’s time and attention than to simply blow over it so easily.
That said, you can find my review of Anna Karenina here.
