Whats this blog about?

I’m writing this review blog in order to expand my horizons in the areas of literature, films, music, and television. The big difference from other review blogs is that I will be breaking the demographic barrier of an 18-40 year old male and reviewing media outside my normal demo. I’m coming from the perspective of a non-English major that likes a lot of the same things a normal guy in his early 20’s likes. If this sounds too gimmicky don’t worry, because I’m not going to pander to stupidity in order to excrete machismo and/or masculinity. Enjoy.

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Album Review: Tegan & Sara--Heartthrob


I won’t treat you like you’re typical.

This is a lyric from Tegan & Sara’s headline song (“Closer”) off their new album titled Heartthrob. Before I heard their new album I thought of Tegan & Sara as a catchy folk-pop duo with a gimmick. That may sound negative, but I’m truly a fan of the Canadian twin sisters and that’s especially true of their 2007 album The Con. I have mostly all of their albums on my iPod and I still appreciate the nuance in which they combine folk and modern indie. The Con was engulfed with guest performers that made the album very good and catchy. The drums were preformed by Jason McGerr of Death Cab for Cutie and in my opinion make the album whole. My favorite song of the album is “Floorplan” for the great combination of light drumming and fast acoustic guitar; the song just captures the soul of the album perfectly.


I know this is not a review of The Con album, but I just wanted to give context to why I was disappointed with the new album. Folk-pop, pop-folk, indie folk, or whatever you call it has really caught fire the past few years with bands like Of Monsters and Men, Edward Sharpe & The Magnetic Zeros, and Mumford & Sons so I was patiently waiting for Tegan & Sara’s new album because I assumed that this was their bread and butter. When I heard “Closer” before the album was released I was a little confused to why it was a straight pop song. I told myself the record company probably released that song to catch mainstream radio, but I was wrong. Every single song on the album is exactly in the genre of mainstream pop without a hint of the acoustic drug I hold dear.



When I first heard this song I was like: “This song sounds like it should be playing during a women’s spin class.” I wasn’t surprised when I looked up producers for the Heartthrob album and saw they mostly hail from hip-hop and electronic genres. This venture into highly produced pop is not new for Tegan & Sara because they did do a song with Tiesto called “Feel It In My Bones,” but I thought I would end with guest spots and not a whole album. I would have been okay with a combo pop and folk album because they do it very well, but this album had no soul to it. Every song sounded like the one before and I couldn’t wait for the album to be done with. Skip buying the album on iTunes and stick to listening to it on spotify. But do yourself a favor and buy The Con on iTunes. Now I must wait for another few years and hope they go back to the folk-pop they got me hooked on. GRADE: 4.5/10

Friday, March 1, 2013

T.V. Review: Girls (HBO)


There are so many well-rounded opinions/reviews of the show so I will be only covering the scope that catches my attention. This review works best if you are minimally familiar with the show.

Post College Indecision. For those of us who are “lucky” to have graduated in this economy, we’ve adopted foolish dreams followed by actual nightmares during this time in our lives. I personally feel that the job aspect of post-college is overplayed in the national dialogue, but to be fair to them this economy is all I know. The T.V. show Girls covers this time in a person’s life where indecision runs deep and not just on the career front. The simple question, “what do these women want?” is asked and never answered in every episode leaving the audience in the same confused state as the characters. In that respect the show strikes the right tone and scope of real life when dealing with this aspect of uncertainty.

Hipster Entitlement. The characteristic that bothers me the most with these characters is the sense of entitlement that these women have. More specifically the characters of Hannah, Marnie, and Jessa drive me a little crazy with this characteristic. Maybe I’m defensive because I assume people believe entitlement is a characteristic of this generation, but I disagree. Maybe it’s just my group of friends, but post-undergrads in general do not have this sense of entitlement the way the show would like you to believe. They are definitely spoiled characters, but that characteristic is not a result of being in this generation. It is a result of their personal life where they struggle yet adapt being away from their parents.

Adam
Hannah
This is the first show on T.V. that really incorporates the post-modern hipster ideal. I know what I just wrote sounds like an over analysis of a young sub-culture, but believe me when I say that show covers the ideal. I can’t tell you what this ideal is because like culture it cannot be defined. It is a sub-personality of a generation that each individual defines. The unflattering traits of hipsters are easy to see and easy to hate. The women (minus Shoshanna) use people for their personal experience. I’m not saying that it should have no place on the show; it’s actually quite entertaining. This flaw in the personality of the women is presented and served to the audience for them to judge. I believe the flaw in these characters works because it gives us a window into the lives of the hipster personality.
Jessa

SPOILER ALERT: S2 E4
Here is a small cut of dialogue from my favorite scene in the series when Jessa is arguing with her non-hipster finance husband:

Husband: “You’re just some dumb fucking hipster that’s munching my hay!”

Jessa: “I’m embarrassed when we walk down the street because you are so fucking average. I tell my friends that you were born a test tube baby, so you have a little edge…you are ridiculous."

Husband: “And you’re just a whore with no work ethic.”
Marnie
SLAP

Real Good. Realism. These characters don’t have sexy/exciting personalities like network television and I believe it works for the show. I don’t think the female audience wants to be like these characters, but the female audience actually pities them. An unsatisfying life is the real drama/comedy in the series covering the reality of life in the mind of a confused young person. The show hits really good marks in that respect.   

Real Bad. Structure. Some of the episode structures get under my skin some. The show really tails off when an episode focuses on one or two characters only. The show is a lot better when we are following the whole group as opposed to only Hannah. Maybe I feel this way because Hannah, Marnie, and Jessa are truly annoying to my sensibilities, but centric episodes make me hate them even more.

Shoshanna
Girls. Verdict. Girls is a god way to describe these women who play victims of their time, like eccentric artists stuck in the 21st century. There are plenty of post-undergrads in New York so why are these women special and represent the rest of our generation? This is the main question I ask myself pondering why this show is so popular. I can’t personally relate to the show, but why is it perceived as being the “voice of a generation?” I believe that I’m not the right demo for the show. I swear I have an open mind towards the show, heck I watched the whole first season before any of my friends who are now avid fans of the show. I find it a little pretentious and an exaggeration of post-college boredom. It’s a different kind of show I’ll admit and maybe that’s why I can’t fully wrap my head around it. GRADE 7.0

Saturday, February 16, 2013

T.V. Review: Skins U.K. (Season 1 & 2)



Why Skins? Well up to this point I have entertained myself with mediums older than my demo. So when thinking of something to watch for my T.V. review I wanted to find something younger than my demo. Short of watching the Disney Channel I decided to try Skins season 1 & 2. It’s probably categorized as a teen drama more for women so I believe its worthy to review for this blog.



I first heard of Skins when the U.S. version was set to release and there was a lot of controversy with all the sex and drug depictions. I just waived it off because I wasn’t gonna watch the show anyway. While in college I overheard many conversations of people (mostly girls) that liked Skins (U.K.) which first came out in 2008. I decided to watch seasons 1 & 2 because there were only 19 episodes and I would finish it relatively fast. My expectations were of a series that may be kind of shallow, but I thought it must be popular for a reason so I went in with an open mind.


The series first caught me off guard with the structure of each episode, which centers around one (sometimes two) characters. There are eight characters that the show focuses on (Tony, Michelle, Sid, Cassie, Chris, Jal, Maxxie, and Anwar) who are in the equivalent of American upper high school. It took me a few episodes to grasp the lingo of U.K. slang because there are quite a few differences between U.K. English and American English. For example, instead of calling it weed/pot they called it spliff. If anything I learned some cool new words that I can now introduce into my vocabulary. There is also the music, which is pretty awesome and an important part of the show. At the end of the first season creative juices simmer when the characters go somewhat Bollywood and lip-sync to Cat Stevens “Wild World.” I usually skip the opening credits of a show, but in this show the credits are too catchy to miss. Check it out for yourself:




Cassie (Hannah Murray)
Before you think this is a flat out comedy let we warn you that it is straight drama with some laughable moments. But I must state that the characters in this T.V. show have serious problems for being teenagers. You grow to put up with the negative aspects of each character some worse than others. If you’re looking for your favorite character you kind of have to pick the best of the worst. My favorite character was Cassie who held down the second episode in the first season and absolutely kept me entertained. Actress Hannah Murray does a great job portraying this character that has Anorexia and a peculiar personality. If you can only watch one episode of the series I would definitely recommend 1.02 just to watch Murray put on a show.


Tony (Nicholas Hoult)
If you like the sociopath bad boy characters you would definitely like the character of Tony played by the most famous of the cast Nicholas Hoult. In the first season Tony manipulates, tricks, and chisels all of his friends and enemies to do whatever he wants. Tony definitely has an evil personality, but he is so entertaining because of it. Tony’s personality shift is just one example of the differences between season 1 and season 2.

The story lines get more serious and the characters suffer heavy emotional losses in season 2. One can see the evolution of high school students to adults as well. They went from sex & drugs to death & heartbreak quickly and I’ll let you decide if the evolution was too heavy. If I were a teen I’d probably be upset at the change, but as a guy in his 20’s I can appreciate the change.

The friends are kind of split between primary (Tony, Michelle, Sid, Cassie) and secondary (Chris, Jal, Maxxie, Anwar) characters in the first season, which is not a big deal because it depicts friendships in real life, sort of friends within friends. The best part about the show is that you can actually believe these are high school students. These are not models in their mid-20’s playing high school students, but actors that look like regular people. The show is sort of drenched in realism that is lost with American teen dramas that try to depict teenagers as pretty white people with problems. Of course the show has to pander to teens so there is a bunch of ridiculousness, like walking in on an attractive teacher while showering in school. The sex & drugs criticism is a little overplayed because I didn’t see anything that was too bad or too graphic, but I will say that the nudity was HBO-esque for a teen show. I guess I’m just used to American shows that don’t really show so much nudity without being on a premium cable network.

As much as I wanted to go off on some of the negative traits of these characters, I came to realize that we’ve all suffered from these traits as teens even though it was probably to a lesser extent. After season two the show spins off with new characters and although I don’t plan to watch future seasons I’m glad I watched this pillar of late 2000’s pop culture. It was refreshing to see a new window into the T.V. genre that has disappointed and plagued T.V. entertainment. I can now see why this show is praised by fans and hated by parents. Without influence I have come to recommend the first season to your teenage sensibilities. GRADE: 7.5/10

Saturday, February 9, 2013

Album Review: Father John Misty--Fear Fun


Fear Fun
I wrote this tiny article almost a year ago when Father John Misty's first album was going to be released. I sent it to a few indie mag's, but it was never picked up. I really like this entry though so I'll share it with you guys. I know it doesn't correspond with my mission statement, but I swear my next submission will correspond.

“Contrary to anesthetized neo-progressive sensibilities, what we celebrate as a culture is in some way related to the state of the individual.” – Josh Tillman

Does this quote make you marvel? Does it tickle your innermost consciousness and mirror your deepest insecurities to the world? I’m sure Tillman would think that’s’ how his fans would feel, but the former Fleet Foxes drummer is far from being the next Claude Levi-Strauss or Clifford Geertz. Tillman’s symbolic yet perplexing statements on modern civilization don’t tell us much about his art, but they do tell us that Tillman is an ardent character with passion equal to that of a West LA shaman. Tillman’s (current) personality shows in his recent solo work under the name “Father John Misty.” I may cringe at some of the one-liners Josh Tillman congers up in his head, but I’ll admit that I like his new album Fear Fun to be released on May 8, 2012.

There is an ongoing theme of Hollywood in the album that is sort of refreshing in the anti-industry bubble that has recently hit indie the past few years. The old Hollywood flavor is certainly present and makes itself known with themes and syntax that are similar to Buffalo Springfield, but with a modern flavor. The song being pushed early by his label is titled “Hollywood Forever Sings” and it resurrects listeners to the sounds of Old Hollywood found in the house bands of 1960’s Whiskey a Go Go and the Troubadour.

For fun you should definitely count the number of references to Los Angeles and the Hollywood area in this album. Tillman may be a lost soul that belongs in the 1960’s but this album hits modern keys and tones that fans of indie will like today. You don’t have to be an old man with fond memories of classic Sunset Boulevard to appreciate this album. I’ll admit that personally I like Father John Misty more than Josh Tillman, but I seem to be banking on the hope that Josh has a split personality disorder. One personality is a rich ex-drummer from a popular indie band that says the most pretentious pseudo-philosopher shit in the world (don’t follow him on twitter) and the other (Father John Misty) is a smart music historian whose mind is deprived with the once majestic Sunset Strip.


Saturday, January 26, 2013

Movie Review: Anna Karenina (2012)


Unlike the novel I definitely had expectations about the 2012 film version of Anna Karenina. Those expectations were met and exceeded in my opinion by the writer, cinematographer, and actors. I was aware beforehand of the writer of this film Tom Stoppard because I read his very funny play Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead and I think he did a fantastic job cutting Anna Karenina into a film adaptation. The most impressive part of the film was the scene transitions the first third of the movie. I assume they cut out the transitions for the rest of the film due to the time constraints, but when it was on screen it was something. Also impressive was the set where they filmed the movie, which was a theatre stage. It’s hard to explain the transitions and the stage, but trust me when I say that it’s unique in a good way. I’ll break down the actors and the important characters individually.

Keira Knightley’s portrayal and look of Anna Karenina was exactly how I pictured the character. I probably cheated a little before I read the book because I knew she was playing her, but Keira added a certain depth I never pictured before. Keira’s Anna was a lot funnier than I imagined in the book. She has perfected this period character that is soaked in the divine comedy. The character of Anna is very overdramatic, but I like how Keira toned it down to a more realistic version of Anna. I’d give Keira and the writer Stoppard an A+ for matching and exceeding my expectations for Anna.

Jude Law played the sour victim Karenin, which I’m still murky about. The character is very bland and lacks passion so it’s hard to say that Jude Law played the character great when the character is dry to begin. With that said Jude Law matched the book character perfectly so I’ll give him an A, but not an A+ because he didn’t add anything new to the character.

Aaron Taylor-Johnson played the character Vronsky, which I think would be the hardest character to portray. I was shocked when I found out after the movie that Aaron was the same guy in the movie Kick-Ass. Aaron in Kick-Ass looked nothing like Vronsky so I’ll give the make-up people in Kick-Ass a lot of credit or the make-up people in Anna Karenina credit for the transformation. Aaron did give Vronsky some personality that I thought lacked in the book, but Aaron’s look was a lot more boyish than I had pictured. In the book I was a little confused about how Vronsky moved on from Kitty to Anna so fast, but Aaron’s portrayal answered that question for me perfectly without words. I wouldn’t say Aaron met my expectations, but he gave me a different scope to see the character of Vronsky. In the end, I have no complaints on his portrayal of a hard character so I’ll give him an A+ for giving a solid performance.
Anna Karenina

Kick-Ass









The character of Levin I thought would be the easiest to portray because he suffers with a lot of internal conflict and he doesn’t really show his emotions. I’m sorry to say that I was sort of disappointed in Domhnall Gleeson’s portrayal of Levin. Domhnall’s Levin was so wimpy compared to what I had pictured in my head. I know Levin had some sort of social anxiety, but Levin is stubborn and Domhnall was portraying a man who wears his emotions on his sleeves. I think Domhnall was just a victim of the cuts in the screenplay because Levin’s storyline was not filled with as much tension and drama than Anna’s. I would have to give Domhnall’s portrayal a solid C because I don’t think justice was given to Levin’s character.
Gleeson

My favorite character in the book was Stepan (Oblonsky/Stiva) and I’ll gladly give actor Matthew Macfadyen and A+ for just filling in the blanks to an already easy/funny character.

Macfadyen
Kitty (Alicia Vikander) and Dolly (Kelly MacDonald) were portrayed fairly to the point where I can’t really think of anything to complain about. In the film both characters really weren’t featured enough to give the actors much room to practice their craft. All other characters really weren’t featured enough to give me something to write about.

I will admit that I’m not a really creative person; therefore the action in my mind while reading the book was very tedious. The first half of this film was pure brilliance because it brought life to the story and it was hitting every important plot point. Obviously the director couldn’t put in every scene in the book into the movie, but they gambled and kept the film true to the book for the first half. I’m not going to break down the plot, but just comment on what I thought was important. They cut out some long parts of the book that I was okay with like Kitty in Germany, Anna/Vronsky in Italy, and Anna/Vronsky living on the country estate. There were some parts they included in the movie that I think they could have shot better. For example, I thought Kitty caring after Levin’s brother was a big scene in the development of the character in the book, but in the film it was shot like a montage. That upset me a little bit because it wasn’t giving Kitty the credit I thought she deserved.
Kitty
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I did not remember any reusable condoms in the book version. In the film, Karenin pulling out a reusable condom before bed symbolized his lack of passion when juxtaposed to Vronsky who has passionate sex with Anna in the movie. I thought that was pretty funny because when he pulled it out for the first time in the movie I was like “what the hell is that? It can’t be a condom because it looks like its jewel incrusted.”
Of course in the movie version Anna meets the same fate, but Anna is portrayed more positively in the film version. I don’t know if this was because they cut out the scenes that portray Anna negatively or if this was deliberate. In the book, Anna’s treatment of Dolly at the estate, her lack of mothering with the daughter, and her views on Levin gave Anna some antagonist traits. This could also be because those scenes were in the second half of the book and the film didn’t invest heavily in the second half.

When the horseracing scene was coming up I was very confused to how they were going to pull it off because as I said earlier they shot the scene in a theater. Surprisingly the scene was great and they pulled it off. In the book the horse race was long distance and the stage is obviously too short, so the dark backstage was set as the part of the race the audience couldn’t see. The tension in the book was going to be hard to match, but they matched it.

After Anna’s demise the film wrapped up pretty quickly just like the book. We didn’t see Vronsky going to war, but we did see a little of Levin. It seems that the ending scenes of Levin were just leftover cuts, because unless you read the book the scenes were out of context. I believe they should have ended the film after Anna’s demise instead of limping to the finish line with Levin’s ending. I think it would have given the audience a shock to the system. Instead we were left with Karenin caring after Anna’s children in a meadow.

My overall review of the film is positive one because the beginning makes up for the weak finish of the movie. I hope in the extended DVD version they have those awesome scene transitions throughout, because it made a huge difference in me liking the film. If I were giving advise, I would say to watch the movie first then read the book to help fill in the gaps. Although if one does do that be prepared to read a lot and have patience. GRADE: 8.5/10

I'm officially done with the Anna Karenina franchise. Look for my book summary and book review if you want to read more.

Monday, January 21, 2013

Book Review: Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy


Finally done with it. It's wordy, but only because it was a long book so I do not expect other reviews to be this long.

Tolstoy caught me off guard immediately because there was no sign of the character the book was named after. I was starting to believe Anna was going to be a small character and Stepan was the true main character, because Anna didn’t show up until chapter 8. My first impression of Levin was of a man that was very insecure and socially awkward, yet he had enough confidence to ask Kitty for a marriage. After her denial one could see Levin’s self-esteem crash and he suffered with it for about half the novel. Vronsky didn’t make a strong impression at the beginning inferring that when he was with Kitty he was just of shell of his true self. The ball in Moscow was one of the most important scenes in the book where Vronsky was flirting with Anna and as a strait male I thought Vronsky did quite a good job playing the pick-up game with Anna. Kitty saw immediately that Vronsky had eyes for Anna and was very hurt because she saw too that Anna was beautiful. I think Anna played around with Vronsky at the expense of Kitty in order to have a little drama in her life. Although when Vronsky showed up on the train on the way back to St. Petersburg she realized that this was no longer a game. I’m going to give Stepan and Dolly’s relationship some analysis as well because I think Stepan is a funny character. Early on Dolly is pretty weak in her convictions and I honestly believe that Dolly was just milking attention at the beginning of the novel in order to be relevant. I will say that Dolly does make a comeback later in the novel and transforms into a character that is extremely likeable.


Before we go to St. Petersburg to see how Anna and Vronsky are doing we are taken to Levin’s farm. Levin is quite a farmer and very passionate about it. But I did think he was sort of dry in this part of the book. You would think Levin would be quite humble because of his dislike for the city, but he has strong opinions about peasants to put it lightly. I would probably have to read this section again in order to get a sense of Levin’s theories of agriculture, because it was hard to pay attention with St. Petersburg coming up. Kitty tries to change her personality in Germany so she may gain certain clarity to her life. I have to say that she comes off kind of phony and displays her immaturity in dealings with a local family she almost breaks up, but it’s in Germany where she learns how fragile and complicated adult relationships really are.

While Vronsky courts Anna in St. Petersburg we get a better sense of how Karenin thinks. He is a man with little personality and passion, which is the exact opposite of Anna. You could feel the tension in the room when Anna was talking to Vronsky and Karenin entered the party. Tolstoy does a great job setting up the context in which you can hear the whispers of people talking about this inappropriate relationship. The short chapter in which Anna and Vronsky have sex was sort of weird. I read the chapter and was very confused about what just happened because there was crying and the exaggerated dialogue of Anna moaning the word “murderer.” I thought they had just broken off their relationship, but I looked online at a chapter review and it said that they just had relations. I read the chapter again with this in mind and I could see it, but I thought it was more comical than emotional. My favorite scene in the book was the horse race because it was just filled with tension and I could see the plot potentially pulled in many different directions. During the race the reader was as nervous for Vronsky as Anna was, so when Vronsky fell you could understand why Anna wept. The revelation of the affair to Karenin had to be done after the race because it was becoming ridiculous how clue less Karenin was acting. The reveal was odd because Karenin scolding Anna for weeping in front of everyone and Anna seemed frustrated at the lack of passion in Karenin’s voice.  I’m sure Anna would have respected Karenin more if he just said what was on his mind instead of holding it in and talking like a constitutional lawyer. Although Karenin was the one being cheated on he played up his role as the victim way too hard and set himself up for embarrassment.

The reconciliation of Kitty and Levin was not as tense as St. Petersburg, but you felt like the stakes were higher than with Anna and Vronsky. One could guess that Vronsky and Anna would not last, but you really wanted Levin to shut-up about farming and just settle down with Kitty. The ridiculous way that they got together was so symbolic that one could tell that Tolstoy was commenting that their relationship was magical and impossible for anyone else.

Back in St. Petersburg we first encounter supernatural themes when Anna and Vronsky have dreams that foreshadow Anna dying in childbirth. This caught me a little off guard because Tolstoy stood pretty consistent about letting anything seem too mysterious. There is probably something to fact that dreams and miracles only happen in Anna’s storyline rather than Levin’s. One positive trait that Anna tested Vronsky with was the news of the pregnancy. I always read the Vronsky character as having maturity, but Anna couldn’t see that until this news. Reading the chapters with Anna on her deathbed was sort of an enigma. They were very emotional powerful chapters, but then almost immediately Anna was recovering causing a lot of confusion within the culture of the novel. I’m sure Tolstoy did this to keep the reader on their toes in order to infer that any character may die or survive at any moment. Vronsky’s attempted suicide kind of came out of nowhere because he was in the middle of an inner dialogue. I’m not going to dig too deep into the reasons of the suicide, but assume that Vronsky was emotionally damaged from Anna dying. I think that Vronsky didn’t want to kill himself, but he wanted to feel pain as Anna was feeling.

Tolstoy tested my patience and nerves with the wedding of Kitty and Levin. Tolstoy knew that the wedding couldn’t go on without drama so he threw in some wedding day uncertainty. When Anna and Vronsky were in Italy I kind of hated their fakeness that they played up with art. This was the equivalent of Kitty’s little trip to Germany where the characters try to “find themselves,” but they are really just running away from their problems.

Tolstoy sort of played up Kitty as the spoiled youngest daughter, but her character had her best moment in my opinion when she cared for Levin’s dying brother Nikolai. I don’t think she cared for Nikolai because she liked him, but because she saw how Levin was afraid of death.

I thought that maybe Anna’s negative flaw in Italy was a one-time thing when she had the very emotional reunion with her son. It was a very bittersweet moment because you could feel the connection she has with her son, but you know that it would be short-lived. Meeting her son gave her a blind confidence to go back into her former social life led by her nourishing quality of naïveté. Anna first displays her irrational behavior after the embarrassment of the play where she tries to blame Vronsky for not stopping her from going. This becomes common practice with her as she realizes that her social mobility becomes stagnant.

Tolstoy gives a not so coy test to Levin and Vronsky in the character of Veslovsky who is a young philanderer. Levin fails miserably showing a flaw in his otherwise solid character, because he becomes irrationally jealous of Veslovsky. Kitty doesn’t get mad at Levin, but tries to help support and comfort him with his problem. On the other side of the coin Vronsky displays that he is not the jealous type. His self-confidence is at its height and he just wants to settle down with Anna who is grasping at any drama she can drum up in order to seem relevant.

Anna’s most disappointing moment in my view was when Dolly came to visit the country estate. Anna behaved like a snob in front of Dolly who was obviously uncomfortable. This was quite an evolution of Anna who was very supportive of Dolly earlier in the novel. This was also the point when we realize that Anna is not a good mother to her daughter. This is probably because she blames the new child for ruining/stealing the affection of her son. There was also the chapter in which Anna met Levin and she took pride in knowing that she could have corrupted Levin. I’m not sure what Tolstoy was trying to show us in this scene, but to portray that Anna was temptress.

It was at this point in the novel where I was getting sort of impatient because it seemed that this book was never going to end. This feeling was heightened because Tolstoy takes the reader out to the countryside to the elections. Levin and Vronsky are again compared to each other in regard to their social and political prowess. It would seem that Levin again failed this test while Vronsky thrived in that capacity. Levin is really just a simple man who wants to live away from the political world that everyone seems so caught up in. On the same subject Vronsky understands how to play the social game and use his skills to thrive in this world.

Karenin’s religious crusade against Anna is aided by the fact that Countess Lydia is pulling his strings. Which seems very odd to me because it seemed he resented Anna’s independence, yet he is now fine having another woman tell him what to do. I also don’t understand the obviously allegorical character in the clairvoyant French boy who advises Karenin. It was a weird scene to read when Stepan was in the room and this Frenchman just doses off. I’m severely lost as to the significance/virtue of this character.

The fall of Anna was a little hard to follow because at this point I was reading really fast in order to reach the conclusion. Anna felt that Vronsky was the only person she had so when Vronsky was associating with another woman, Anna just collapsed emotionally. When she did ultimately kill herself I was actually kind of relieved because she was bringing Vronsky down with her. The coming suicide was evident for this once charming woman that fought the standards in her world, but she was not strong enough to resist the esteem that came with these standards. Whether or not Vronsky was actually having an affair was meek because Anna became selfish and betrayed the characteristics that made me respect her. After her death the novel was pretty much over.

Tolstoy added salt in the wound of readers who were sad over Anna’s death when we found out what happened to Vronsky. I was hoping that Vronsky would move on with his life, but when Anna died so died his soul. I don’t know what else Vronsky could have done to help Anna, but literally hold her hand the entire last third of the book. Tolstoy also left us with a little humanity when he gave Lenin a boring, yet pleasant ending.
My favorite theme in the novel was the change of circumstance. While Kitty and Levin were miserable, Anna and Vronsky were happy, but in the end Kitty and Levin were the ones at peace. Passion does not equal happiness. It’s only an investment to be paid out with agony.

I read this book with no expectations of what I was getting. I was pleasantly surprised how sometimes Tolstoy threw in a curveball and got me to quickly flip every page. This was my first book I read of Tolstoy, but do I have the patience to read War and Peace? I will only say maybe and that’s only because he writes quick resolutions installed in very short chapters for the most part.

I will have a review of the 2012 film Anna Karenina coming up soon.



Thursday, January 17, 2013

Favorite and Least Favorite in Anna Karenina

I'm almost done with the review, but until then here is a small write-up about my favorite and least favorite character.


Favorite Character
My favorite character was actually Stepan (aka Stiva or Oblonsky).  Although he always cheats on his wife he just loves life.  While everyone else is struggling with his or her own neurosis he just wants to eat, drink, and talk.  In any conversations the other person is always nervous talking with Stepan.  Karenin for example seems generally afraid of Stepan because Stepan will convince him to come out of his shell.  I can honestly see how Anna and Stepan are related.  They are very chatty people who know how to play the game of Russian Socialite, although it’s at the expense of their partners.  After Anna dies one can be sure that Anna’s passionate personality will live on in Stepan.

Least Favorite Character
I would have to say its Countess Lidia Ivanovna.  She is some religious nut that Karenin respects and after Anna leaves Karenin she acts like a vulture and picks up the pieces of Karenin’s dead personality.  She basically turns into Karenin’s harsh rule enforcer.  All we really know about her is that her husband left and she has no kids.  She is basically living vacuously through Karenin, but why?  There was no sexual desire between the two, but they were tied hand in hand in the second half of the book.  The Countess also brought in that weird French character that has visions and those visions told Karenin not to get a divorce.