| The
Review: |
It's not what's there in King Vidor's
epic version of Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace," but what isn't
there. At the center of this jewel-encrusted ruby of romance,
tragedy, war, and political turmoil, there is a vague emptiness
that permeates throughout the material and just keeps it from
being anything more than a passable, admirable effort on the
part of the filmmakers. I respect the craft, but overall I
was unmoved by the experience. ***
Perhaps this is due to the fact
that Vidor spends so much time with the melodramatic elements
of the film that he fails to instill any sense of tension,
urgency, or dread into the piece as a whole. Or the fact that
with a whopping total of six writers (and even three uncredited
writers), a cast of thousands, and a set of lead actors who
have done respectable work in the past, my interest tended
to wane with each passing minute. Heck, maybe it's just because
I haven't read a word of Tolstoy, and don't have the option
to bitch about inconsistencies between the novel and the film.
No matter how you look at it, this baby is seriously lacking
something. ***
There were things I did enjoy about
"War and Peace:" the iflm has a certain episodic nature about
it that introduces us to various characters and stages a wealth
of events in each of their lives. Much of what occurs revolves
around Natasha (Audrey Hepburn), the young daughter of a Russian
aristocrat who finds herself caught between the affections
of not one, not two, but three men in the midst of Napoleon
Bonaparte's invasion of Russia in the early 19th century.
At first taken with the charming, lovestruck Prince Andrei
Bolkonsky (Mel Ferrer), she takes comfort in the arms of soldier
Anatole (Vittorio Gassman) when Andrei goes off to war, only
to realize that she still has feelings for him upon seeing
him again. Her third suitor, and longtime friend Pierre Bezukhov
(Henry Fonda), doesn't make his feelings known until later.
***
And that's just the brief synopsis
of the synopsis! The film is a staggering albeit interesting
character study of its subjects, portraying their lives down
to the last detail in hopes that we might understand what
shapes these people and their beliefs. Andrei's life is overshadowed
by his dominant, image-obsessed father, who objects to his
proposal of marriage to Natasha. Natasha, in her childlike
innocence, is merely going through the changes of a teenage
girl: she's consumed by love whenever and wherever it pleases
her, but something in her relationship with Andrei shakes
her up. I think she acts as she does in accordance with her
feelings because she's afraid of being alone, and her strengths
in overcoming this fear as the movie progresses are well-rendered.
***
The biggest change, however, is
seen in Fonda's character. Pierre is a man who cares little
about war: even as his fellow countrymen march off to battle,
he seems unmoved by patriotism or politics. Once the war reaches
Moscow, and he experiences the ravages of Napoleon firsthand,
there is an undeniable change in him, as in many of the characters,
that can be seen in a mere glance. He is a broken man, haunted
by the memories of his past, and bruised by what he witnesses.
***
The dramatics are well-handled by
Vidor and the filmmakers, and played out nicely by the cast.
Hepburn, fresh off of the enchanting "Roman Holiday" and the
equally superb "Sabrina," is the ideal portrait of innocence
in the face of tragedy; her charms are an instant attraction
for the audience, and her talent is beautifully displayed.
Fonda works better when he's speaking with his eyes and not
with his mouth: it's as if he's reading from cue cards, and
I know for a fact he's capable of more. Ferrer makes for the
most dashing of the three suitors, and his way with words
isn't bad, either. In fact, he and Hepburn do share a unique
chemistry that is strangely absent between her and Fonda.
***
And speaking of absences, despite
all that is good about the movie, there is a great deal that
is missing as well. Sure, the epic scope of the film is top-notch
and as expansive as the Russian countryside, and I was is
a state of awe and wonderment over the envisionment of thousands
of soldiers marching across a snowy landscape in one of the
film's most well-staged scenes. But when the movie shifts
gears and heads into battle scene territory, something gets
lost in the shuffle. There is no energy to the setpieces,
no sense of urgency to the combat as seen through the then-modern
method of filming known as "VistaVision" (instead of vertical
photography, the film runs horizontally inside the camera).
Sweeping shots of running soldiers and officers on horseback
charging at the enemy just don't have any real energy to them:
they're nice to look at, but not very pleasing to the mind.
***
In the end, the film just feels
too long. There is an equal balance of moments that are pleasing
to the senses, countered by those which deaden them. The characters
feel right, and their emotions and experiences provide some
of the film's highlights; for this, I was able to survive
the lacking battle sequences and at-times boring exchanges
between officers and soldiers. It took ten years to make "War
and Peace," and it shows in almost every aspect; too bad it
feels twice as long in too many instances.
|
