You know that feeling when you watch a movie and you can just tell the director was obsessed with a single, specific idea? That's the Anna Karenina movie 1997. Directed by Bernard Rose, this version of Leo Tolstoy’s massive Russian novel is weird, beautiful, and deeply divisive. Some people love it for being the only major English-language version actually filmed in Russia. Others hate it because it cuts out almost everything that isn't the central, doomed romance.
It's a bold film. It doesn't care about being a "complete" adaptation of the 800-page book. Honestly, it’s basically a fever dream about obsession.
The St. Petersburg Atmosphere Nobody Else Could Match
Most Tolstoy adaptations feel like they were shot in a very nice, very clean library in England. Not this one. Because Bernard Rose insisted on filming in St. Petersburg and Moscow, the Anna Karenina movie 1997 has a grit and a coldness that feels real. You can almost feel the dampness of the Winter Palace. You see the actual Hermitage.
Sophie Marceau plays Anna. She’s French, which bothered some critics at the time, but her performance is haunting. She doesn't play Anna as a victim of society; she plays her as someone who is slowly losing her mind to morphine and jealousy. It’s dark. Sean Bean plays Count Vronsky. Before he was Ned Stark or Boromir, he was this dashing, slightly dangerous cavalry officer with a mustache that looks like it belongs in a period-accurate painting.
The chemistry is... intense. It’s not "pretty" romance. It’s the kind of romance that wrecks lives.
Why the 1997 Version Cut Levin’s Story (Mostly)
If you’ve read the book, you know that Konstantin Levin is the heart of the story. He represents Tolstoy’s own spiritual journey. In the Anna Karenina movie 1997, Levin (played by Alfred Molina) is definitely there, but he’s pushed to the sidelines.
💡 You might also like: Why This Is How We Roll FGL Is Still The Song That Defines Modern Country
A lot of fans were mad about this. Basically, the movie decides that the "Anna and Vronsky" tragedy is the only thing the audience wants to see. By cutting down the farming scenes and the philosophical debates about the soul of Russia, the film moves at a breakneck pace. It’s less of a social study and more of a psychological thriller. Is it "accurate"? Not really. But is it effective? If you want a movie about the crushing weight of a scandalous affair, then yeah, it hits hard.
Sophie Marceau vs. Keira Knightley vs. Greta Garbo
Comparing the Anna Karenina movie 1997 to other versions is a favorite pastime for period drama nerds.
- Greta Garbo (1935): This is the "Golden Age" version. It’s classic, but it feels very much like a Hollywood stage play. Garbo is iconic, but the setting feels like a set.
- Keira Knightley (2012): This one, directed by Joe Wright, is highly stylized. It’s set inside a literal theater to show how performative Russian high society was. People either love the gimmick or find it incredibly distracting.
- Sophie Marceau (1997): This version sits in the middle. It’s more "realistic" than the 2012 version because of the Russian locations, but it’s more erotic and darker than the 1935 version.
Marceau brings a certain fragility to the role. In the book, Anna becomes increasingly addicted to opium (morphine) to deal with her anxiety. The 1997 film actually explores this. You see her pupils dilate. You see her paranoia grow. It makes her eventual fate feel less like a "punishment for sin" and more like a tragic mental health spiral.
The Music and the Melodrama
The soundtrack is almost a character itself. Using Tchaikovsky’s "Pathetique" Symphony was a stroke of genius. It’s loud. It’s weeping. It’s Russian.
Bernard Rose didn't want a subtle movie. He wanted a movie that felt like a grand opera. Sometimes it’s a bit much. There are moments where the slow-motion and the swelling violins feel a little "90s melodrama," but in the context of the 19th-century aristocracy, it kind of works. These people lived for drama. They died for it, too.
📖 Related: The Real Story Behind I Can Do Bad All by Myself: From Stage to Screen
One specific detail that stands out is the horse racing scene. It’s shot with such frantic energy that you actually feel the danger. When Vronsky accidentally breaks the back of his horse, Frou-Frou, it’s a pivotal moment. It’s the first time we see that his passion can be destructive. The Anna Karenina movie 1997 handles this better than almost any other version because it doesn't look like a stunt; it looks like a disaster.
Why Critics Originally Hated It (And Why They Were Wrong)
When the film came out, critics were pretty harsh. They called it "Anna Karenina Light." They complained that Alfred Molina was miscast as Levin. They said the pacing was too fast.
But looking back now, the Anna Karenina movie 1997 has aged surprisingly well. In a world of CGI backgrounds and "safe" period pieces, there is something incredibly refreshing about seeing real actors in real Russian snow. It’s a visceral movie. It’s not trying to be a textbook; it’s trying to be a mood.
Also, can we talk about James Fox as Karenin? He plays Anna's husband not as a monster, but as a man who is deeply uncomfortable with emotion. He’s stiff, he’s bureaucratic, and he’s heartbroken in a way he can't express. It’s a nuanced performance that often gets overlooked.
Real Facts About the Production
- Directorial Cut: Bernard Rose actually had a much longer cut of the film. The studio (Warner Bros.) pushed for a shorter runtime, which is why the Levin/Kitty subplot feels a bit rushed.
- The Location: This was the first Western production of Anna Karenina to be filmed entirely on location in Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union.
- Language Barrier: Despite being filmed in Russia with many Russian extras and crew members, the lead actors are a mix of French, British, and American. This creates a strange, international vibe that actually fits the "Westernized" Russian aristocracy of the 1870s.
- The Opening: The film starts with a narration by Levin, which is a nod to the fact that, in the book, he is arguably the more important character.
How to Watch it Today
If you want to watch the Anna Karenina movie 1997, don't expect a relaxing evening. It’s heavy.
👉 See also: Love Island UK Who Is Still Together: The Reality of Romance After the Villa
You should look for the widescreen version if you can find it. The cinematography by Ennio Guarnieri is spectacular, especially the ballroom scenes. The way the camera swirls around the dancers makes you feel as dizzy as Anna does when she first falls for Vronsky.
It’s currently available on various streaming platforms, though it occasionally rotates in and out of the "free with ads" sections. If you’re a fan of the book, try to go into it with an open mind. Don't look for the philosophy. Look for the passion.
Actionable Takeaways for Movie Lovers
- Watch for the symbolism: Notice how many times the movie uses trains and steam as a motif. It’s not just for the ending; it’s a constant reminder of "modernity" crushing the old world.
- Compare the "Vronsky" types: Compare Sean Bean’s rugged, military Vronsky to Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s more "dandy" version in 2012. It changes the whole dynamic of the affair.
- Check out the soundtrack: Even if you don't watch the movie, the use of Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff in this film is a great primer for Russian Romantic music.
- Read the "Levin" chapters: Since the movie skimps on Levin, read his parts in the book. It provides the "balance" that the 1997 film intentionally leaves out to focus on the tragedy.
The Anna Karenina movie 1997 remains a fascinating piece of cinema. It’s flawed, sure. It’s loud and sometimes messy. But it has a soul, and it has the courage to be exactly what it wants to be: a story about a woman who chose love over everything else and paid the ultimate price in a cold, snowy, unforgiving world.
To get the most out of it, watch it on a cold winter night with the lights dimmed. Let the Russian scenery wash over you and ignore the fact that the accents are all over the place. In the end, the emotion is what translates, and this movie has plenty of it.