Let's be honest: when you hear "Anna Karenina," you probably think of a dusty, 800-page book that you promised yourself you’d read back in college but never actually finished. Or maybe you think of the 2012 Anna Karenina movie with Keira Knightley, which—let's be real—is one of the most polarizing period dramas ever made. Some people absolutely adore its theatrical flair, while others find the whole "stage play" conceit a bit much.
But here’s the thing. If you go into this movie expecting a standard, sweeping Russian epic with vast snowy landscapes and literal train stations, you’re going to be very confused. Director Joe Wright didn't just make a movie; he built a giant, decaying puppet theater and shoved the entire Russian aristocracy inside it. It’s weird. It’s bold. And honestly, it’s kind of genius once you realize why he did it.
The Theater Concept: Why Everything Looks Like a Set
The most jarring thing about the Anna Karenina movie with Keira Knightley is the setting. About 90% of the film takes place inside a dilapidated 19th-century theater. Characters walk through doors on a stage and suddenly they’re in a ballroom. They climb up into the rafters to visit a sick relative. Even a horse race happens right on the stage floor, with the "audience" watching from the balconies.
Why?
Basically, Wright and screenwriter Tom Stoppard wanted to show that the high society of St. Petersburg wasn't "living"—they were performing. In the 1870s, the Russian elite were obsessed with being French. They spoke French, they dressed like Parisians, and they constantly watched each other to make sure they weren't breaking any social rules. By setting the movie in a theater, Wright turns their lives into a literal performance.
👉 See also: New Movies in Theatre: What Most People Get Wrong About This Month's Picks
Interestingly, the only character who gets to leave the theater is Levin (played by Domhnall Gleeson). When he goes back to his farm in the country, the camera finally moves outside to real fields and actual sunlight. It’s a subtle way of saying that Levin is the only one living an authentic life. Everyone else? They're just actors in a play that's destined to end in a tragedy.
The Costumes: 1870s Meets 1950s
If you’re a fan of historical accuracy, you might want to look away from the dresses for a second. Jacqueline Durran, the costume designer, did something pretty radical here. Instead of sticking strictly to 1874 silhouettes, she pulled massive inspiration from 1950s Dior and Balenciaga.
She won an Oscar for it. So, clearly, it worked.
Anna's outfits are meant to feel expensive and "couture" in a way that stands out from the "sour pastels" worn by the rest of society. That famous black taffeta dress she wears to the ball? It’s not just a dress; it’s a weapon. It’s designed to frame her face and neck so that Vronsky (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) literally can't look at anyone else—including poor Kitty.
✨ Don't miss: A Simple Favor Blake Lively: Why Emily Nelson Is Still the Ultimate Screen Mystery
- The Jewelry: Those aren't fakes. Keira Knightley wore about $2 million worth of real Chanel diamonds during filming.
- The Colors: Notice how Anna starts in deep reds and blacks, moves to lighter tones when she's "happy" with Vronsky, and then sinks back into dark, heavy fabrics as her world falls apart.
- The Hair: While every other woman has tight, formal updos, Anna’s hair is often a bit looser and more "wild," signaling her inability (or refusal) to fit into the rigid boxes of her social class.
Keira Knightley as Anna: A Different Kind of Heroine
There’s a common misconception that Anna Karenina is just a victim of a cold husband and a mean society. In the Anna Karenina movie with Keira Knightley, that’s not really the case. Knightley plays Anna as someone who is—frankly—a bit of a mess. She’s vain, she’s impulsive, and she’s deeply flawed.
Some critics at the time felt Knightley was "too much," but if you read Tolstoy, Anna is too much. She’s a woman who demands an intensity of love that the world isn't designed to give her. Jude Law, playing her husband Alexei Karenin, actually gives one of the best performances of his career here. Instead of making him a one-dimensional villain, he’s a man who is genuinely trying to do what he thinks is "right" within a system that values reputation over feelings.
The chemistry between Knightley and Aaron Taylor-Johnson's Vronsky is often the biggest point of debate. Taylor-Johnson, with his bleached blonde curls and porcelain skin, looks like a literal doll. For some, it works—he’s the "ideal" that Anna projects her desires onto. For others, he feels a bit out of his depth compared to the heavyweights like Law and Macfadyen.
What Most People Get Wrong About the Ending
People usually focus on the train. And yeah, the train is important. But the real "gut punch" of the 2012 film is the final shot of Karenin.
🔗 Read more: The A Wrinkle in Time Cast: Why This Massive Star Power Didn't Save the Movie
Without spoiling too much for the three people who don't know how this 150-year-old story ends: the film concludes with a shot of Karenin sitting in a field of flowers with the children. It’s peaceful. It’s quiet. And it’s a direct contrast to the frantic, sweaty, claustrophobic theater where we spent the last two hours. It suggests that while Anna’s "performance" ended in fire and steel, life—real, boring, quiet life—goes on.
How to Watch It Today
If you’re planning to revisit the Anna Karenina movie with Keira Knightley, don't watch it on your phone. This is a "big screen" movie. The cinematography by Seamus McGarvey is breathtaking, especially the way the camera moves through the "backstage" areas of the theater to transition between Moscow and St. Petersburg.
Actionable Insights for Your Next Rewatch:
- Watch the background extras. In many scenes, the extras are frozen in place like statues or moving in choreographed, puppet-like ways. It’s creepy but very intentional.
- Listen to the score. Dario Marianelli (who also did Atonement) uses a lot of waltz motifs that feel like they're spinning out of control, much like Anna’s mental state.
- Compare Anna and Kitty. Look at how Kitty’s scenes gradually move from the theater into the "real" world as she finds happiness with Levin, while Anna stays trapped in the artifice.
Whether you think Joe Wright’s version is a masterpiece or a "noble failure," there's no denying it's the most visually ambitious version of this story ever put to film. It doesn't just tell you Anna's story; it makes you feel the suffocating weight of the stage she was forced to stand on.