War and Peace
|
Our Price: $15.77 Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours Buy Used: from $8.00 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of War and Peace
Movie Review: A Flawed Though Underrated Gem
Summary: 4 Stars
This is a tough one. In this film adaptation of one of the greatest of the literary classics, one is left wondering whether the magic that one feels comes from the film or is carried over from the novel. For those of us who have read the novel, the artistic license that King Vidal takes is difficult to swallow. Even if we understand that something must inevitably be sacrificed in the distillation of such a massive tome, the abridgement of so much literary genius is troubling. Whole characters, episodes and entire subplots are missing, to say nothing of the larger drama of an ancient and honourable culture teetering on the brink of ruin. As hard as the film tries, it misses this sense of awful grandeur and fails to invoke the overwhelming sweep of history conveyed so well in the novel.
Where it succeeds is in the smaller stories: the lives of the key protagonists, their loves, passions, accomplishments and deaths. We see some admirable performances, especially by Audrey Hepburn as Natasha. She is stunning as a precocious innocent who journeys into womanhood through the brutality of war. Henry Fonda at first seems miscast as a gangly nebbish Peter, until you see him decisively defending Natasha's honour and then confessing his love to her, or clinging to life and hope as a grimly determined prisoner of war. And Mel Ferrer invests his Andrew with what I think is just the right mixture of aloofness, sensitivity, passion and angst. When he first asks Natasha to dance, standing there in his uniform of white and serge, you can understand how Audrey Hepburn fell in love with him in real life. Their scenes together show the tension and tenderness of a real couple, and bring a believable romantic chemistry to the screen. Then there is the splendid cast of supporting actors from Natasha's endearing parents to Andrew's martinet of a father to Herbert Lom's surprisingly complex and sympathetic Napoleon. They don't make character actors like these anymore.
It goes without saying that the plot is magnificent. But this is once again more of a tribute to the novel than the film. Only an idiot could have hashed such a wonderful story.
However, this film is no more about plot than it is about politics. I always felt that Tolstoy's choice of title does his novel an injustice, giving it the air of a political treatise that belies its humanity. War and Peace is only peripherally about either war or peace. While his book does polemicize about war, politics and history, it really only finds its stride when focusing on its ageless themes of hope, love, loss and redemption. And because his characters are constructed so skilfully, we care for them and feel their emotions as if they were our own. To this extent, the film largely succeeds. It is true enough to the heart of the characters that it effectively conveys the novel's essence, even if it doesn't adhere strictly to the novel itself.
It's not perfect. For one thing, it contains irritating affectations that are simply unnecessary. For example, Napoleon is shown directing his army in the midst of the battlefield while reclining and with his legs propped up on a footstool. In fact, Napoleon never showed such contempt for his soldiers and often placed himself dangerously near the front lines astride a white charger as an example of courage and trust in his men. And this movie, like Gone with the Wind, to which it is often compared, commits the sin of glossing over the treatment of its underclass. The front line Russian soldier was a starved, ill-equipped peasant pressed into service and kept from deserting with whippings and the threat of death. The movie focuses on the lives and loves of the nobility to the exclusion of practically all else, and this is one area where the film could have gained by departing from the novel.
This is more than a "period" film and even those who are allergic to such fare might wish to give it a chance. In all, it is a fine film to be admired more for its characterizations than its accuracy. It comes off especially well when compared to its contemporary "epics" like Cleopatra, or Ben Hur, because the characters were created not by Hollywood screenwriters, but by a literary genius, and are thus imbued with an almost Shakespearean presence. However, it will not appeal to people with unbending views about either their literature or their history. Tolstoy's novel subsumed his characters to the larger story of a Russia under siege. This is why he populated the world of his novel with so many people. In this film, Hollywood justifies the presence of its big stars by ignoring the larger canvass to concentrate on the lives of a select few. The result is a film much reduced in scope from the spirit of the novel, but still effective in its diminished way.
Movie Review: Very good, although ...
Summary: 4 Stars
As a deeply-adoring Audrey Hepburn fan, I have mixed feelings about this movie, as do many Hepburn devotees. It's hard not to wonder what the then-new epic master, David Lean, might have done with it, had he been in charge instead of King Vidor, a giant of the silent era from decades before.
The story I gather from Hepburn biographies is that the producer of this movie shrewdly cast Hepburn's husband, Mel Ferrer, before offering a part to her. Immediately a rival pre-production group shut down their preparations for a "War and Peace" adaptation, knowing that the plum actress for the part would surely not sign with them. (To my knowledge, Lean never got anywhere near either production.)
Well, if that's the case, then "War and Peace" might have been flawed from the start. The domino effect of starting with Ferrer's casting, securing the directorial efforts of a somewhat-aging Vidor, and also having Hepburn to make love to her own husband onscreen, might have meant that something about this movie seems a bit too comfortable for all involved in making it. It's not as dramatic as it needs to be, as cruel in its cruel moments as it needs to be, and therefore not as inspiring and revelatory of what's great about the human spirit when it needs to be. It does -- to my mind -- feel a bit bloated, a bit slow, and never quite at that high-stakes level you might hope.
Indeed, another story about the movie and its "problematic-ness" was told by King Vidor himself in his autobiography. Apparently, at the time of the movie's production or maybe release, his wife had chid him for letting his own, rather fatherly affection for Audrey Hepburn prevent him from letting her play the fullness of Natasha's character -- which is not always a pleasant one in the book. Vidor copped to this accusation, accepting that he had not pushed her as he might have. Tellingly, in the autobiography he went so far (I believe) as to name young Hepburn as his favorite actress to have ever worked with. There is something touching but not quite fortunate in that, because "War and Peace" will never be remembered as a Vidor masterpiece or even a work of the man in his prime. Perhaps it illustrates that, again, this movie was only going to go so far with itself.
Who knows? But my favorite story about this movie shows the intelligence of Hepburn herself. She had asked that Peter Ustinov be cast as Pierre, which to my mind would have been completely perfect casting. Pierre in the book is a bit rotund, a bit clumsy, but also strongly intellectual and bursting with questions about life and society. Ustinov would have been perfect, given the mind and the comic talent he had. (Ustinov also wrote a lovely eulogy upon Audrey Hepburn's death, which is quoted in his book "Still at Large." He thanked her for thinking of him when Pierre needed casting, saying that her choice of him had continued to surprise him throughout his life. He too was a UNICEF representative in his lifetime, and when he passed away, my mourning for him was mixed with thoughts of Hepburn as well.)
But as to the movie ... I will say that there is nothing inept or embarrassing about this adaptation. There are world-class actors in this movie, and if you're waiting for mistakes from them, don't hold your breath. (Henry Fonda, whatever his speaking accent, definitely understood something about Pierre, as did Ferrer about Andrei and certainly Hepburn about Natasha.) You can watch this movie straight through or in sections on DVD, and probably come to like it quite a bit either way. It's gorgeous for Hepburn alone, but also in so many other ways. But once you know the background of the movie, you do risk getting a case of the what-ifs? If you can ignore them, more power to you.
Movie Review: A Highly Entertaining Hollywood Interpretation of Tolstoy's Epic Novel.
Summary: 4 Stars
This audacious endeavor to bring Leo Tolstoy's brilliant epic novel "War and Peace" to the silver screen deserves kudos. Director King Vidor manages, superbly, to coherently condense the novel's almost 1500 pages into 208 minutes of viewing time. Here he successfully captures the flavor of Russia at war and at peace from 1805, around the time of the Battle of Austerlitz, where Napoleon and his army of the First French Empire engaged the armies of the Russian and Austrian Empires to Napoleon's invasion of Mother Russia, and Moscow itself, in 1812.
The focus is on the social, political, and military upheavals of this period in Russia...with some philosophy thrown in. Co-producers Paramount Pictures, Carlo Ponti, and Dino de Laurentiis apparently spent over six million dollars to make this cinematic extravaganza. The phenomenal battle scenes, directed by Mario Soldati, reflect the cost and the effort as, at times, they appear to be taken from newsreels - in living Technicolor. They are detailed and, frequently, heartrending in nature.
One of the major differences between the book and the movie is that while Tolstoy was able to write, in depth, about the lives of five Russian families - both noble and peasant, fleshing out each character brilliantly, director Vidor has had to concentrate, out of necessity, on just a few representative characters from the aristocratic Rostov and Bolkonsky families and Pierre Bezuhov. Pierre begins life as the natural son of a prince and goes on to become legitimized and made, unexpectedly, the extremely wealthy heir to a title and large fortune when his father dies. The serfs and their historic plight are way underrepresented here, however.
Henry Fonda does a good job in his role as Pierre Bezuhov, probably the central character of both book and film - although he comes across as much more of a Yankee than a Russian or European. Beginning as a somewhat befuddled, carefree outsider - an observer of others with a philosophical nature, he becomes burdened with his newfound responsibilities as a nobleman. He aspires to free his peasants from their lives of drudgery and to improve his many estates, but accomplishes little as he becomes mired down in a marriage with a sophisticated, shallow, immoral women whom he comes to despise. He is an intimate friend of the Rostov family.
Audrey Hepburn is at her best here as Natasha Rostov, an exuberant adolescent who grows into a beautiful, vivacious woman. Hepburn demonstrates her ability to capture a wide range of moods and emotions as Natasha matures and experiences love, joy, profound sorrow and loss.
Mel Ferrer is the proud, somewhat cynical, tragic Prince Andrei Bolkonsky. Descended from a military family, his only sense of romance is related to war and heroism. This romanticism does not last as he becomes exposed to the true horrors of the battlefield. While Ferrer is not my idea of a talented actor, he does carry this part off well. Prince Andrei is not called upon to portray a variety of emotions.
Although Vidor's "War and Peace" is far from perfect, I think he does an admirable job of capturing Tolstoy's major themes of family relationships, social and political change as a result of war and as the younger generation comes of age. While much of Tolstoy's spiritual and philosophical thoughts and theories are absent here, "War and Peace" works well as a romantic epic... of Russia before, during and after tremendous upheaval.
This is a colorful and entertaining movie with no pretensions of being profound. And then there's Audrey Hepburn...reason enough to rent the epic production.
JANA
Movie Review: Audrey Hepburn as Natasha Rambova
Summary: 4 Stars
It's odd that this movie runs three hours and twenty eight minutes and it's considered the short, condensed version of Tolstoy's literary masterpiece. The novel is actually much better known and deserves to be. As much I acknowledge King Vidor as the one of the pioneer directors and a maverick who went his own way throughout his career, this movie is a bit of a disappointment. After all, this is the same director who directed "The Big Parade", the anti war movie that launched MGM.
King Vidor was not your typical Texan. Movies he made just before this was "Duel in the Sun" for Selznick and "The Fountainhead" written by Ann Rand. This "War and Peace" was made in Italy and was produced by Dino deLaurentis. Vidor and six other writers had the tast of condensing Tolstoy's classic, eliminating major subplots and streamling the storylines of the three protangonists.
The main protangonist in the book is Pierre Bezahov, here played by Henry Fonda. In 1968, Sergie Bondachuk played Pierre and wrote and directed a nine hour and much better movie than this one. Sergie even looked more like the book Pierre. Fonda could have played him more accurately, after all, he made "The Wrong Man" around the time and he was no longer a spring chicken. But here, he's dashing even when he wins a duel literally by accident. However, he does his best work when forced to walk as a prisoner to the French. He shows dignity in such adject conditions.
Audrey Hepburn should have been perfect as Natasha and at times, is. However, it's not very convincing that she's just a naive little girl in the beginning and a woman who's been though a lot at the end. Not that's not her fault. Vidor with makeup artists, etc. should have created that illusion. In fact, the story is supposed to take seven years and this movie doesn't convince us of that at all.
Mel Ferrer was Audrey's leading man offscream but he's missing the meloncholy about Andrei is supposed to project. He does have passible good looks and be standoffish but not really much else.
However, he and Andrey do look well together and she also has excellent rapport with Fonda. Herbet Lom plays an interesting Napolean. Anita Ekberg looks beautiful and is not asked to do much else.
The battle scenes are very well done and there is good levity when Fonda appears as a spectator. Ferrer's death scene is way too long and a bit unforgivable as some interesting bits of Tolstoy could have gone in.
Tolstoy's musing about life are basically unfilmable but something could have gone in. Instead, the movie ends with Henry and Natasha reunited. However, the main parts of the basic story were covered.
I just wish it had more the transcendance that the ending of "The Crowd" did. For that, I guess read the book.
Movie Review: Tolstoy, Hollywood style
Summary: 4 Stars
I was tempted to title this 'Tolstoy for Dummies" but that would have been too mean. In truth, I did not buy this film, but found it, free at the public library. So I can't complain too much.
I was a bit surprised (shocked?) at the cast...Henry Fonda? Mel Ferrer?
But it was free and so I watched it one summer night when I didn't have anything else to do. Low expectations make for happy surprises. Henry Fonda has the most American, nasal, reedy, accent but after a while I could get past that as he did a good job of playing the sincere, good Pierre who goes from being a philosopher who stands back from the action of life to one who enters the realm of love and war and learns a lot. Fonda is always good at playing "sincere" in any culture.
Audrey Hepburn shines as Natasha, whose luminous charm lights up the screen as her presence lightens the lives of those around her. One of the best scenes in the film is the ball where Natasha dances almost magically, while her Prince Charming, Andrei, watches transfixed. It's her first ball, her first love and she is full of beauty and the love of love. Hepburn, trained as a classical ballerina, is just perfect here.
I admit I got a bit tired of her by the end, though. Her particular brand of quixotic charm palled a bit after three hours.
Mel Ferrer, Hepburns' real life husband at the time, is ok for the part. We don't see a lot of him, which is probably just as well, as his acting ability seems rather limited to looking handsome.
I loved the small bit of John Mills as the philosophical peasant. He seemed to embody Tolstoy's philosophy of life and I wish we'd seen more of him. His was, frankly, the only death I really mourned.
When you think that this was made in Hollywood in the 50's, it's not so bad. I would prefer something deeper, more Russian, more philosphical, but for that I'll have to look elsewhere.