Onegin
December. 22,1999In the opulent St. Petersburg of the Empire period, Eugene Onegin is a jaded but dashing aristocrat – a man often lacking in empathy, who suffers from restlessness, melancholy and, finally, regret. Through his best friend Lensky, Onegin is introduced to the young Tatiana. A passionate and virtuous girl, she soon falls hopelessly under the spell of the aloof newcomer and professes her love for him
Similar titles
Reviews
It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.
Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.
There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes
It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.
a good adaptation. the right performances. the atmosphere of a time when all does other sense of small things and gestures and words. it is strange to describe something who seems be more than a trip across the poem of Pushkin. because it is a reinvention of a world who impress for the status of contemporary story. for the precise, fine performances, for the states of Onegin , each of it defining the fall of a world too empty. a film about desire and love. the delicacy of the creation of the characters represents one of basic virtues. then, Liam Neeson who becomes, scene by scene, the perfect Onegin. not the least, the music. sure , to use Chaikovski is a better choice but Beethoven , in this case, has its precious purpose to reflect emotions with deep roots in the story. short, a beautiful film. in many senses.
The 1999 cinematic production Onegin left this viewer as moved and distraught as the 'superfluous man.' Although certain social observances, such as 'the duel,' or marriage as an intractable institution, are without equivalents in our society, I believe Onegin's dilemma is identifiable. He is molded by the times and St. Petersburg's decadent society of nobles, but he is also alienated by it. He stands in observation of its faults and of his own. The story finds the character uncompliant but not rebellious. He is without outlet, or his own definition of nobility.The figure of Olga's French tutor assails Onegin for acknowledgement, but Onegin, in his clever way, dispatches this symbol of the Russian Gallomania. The Onegin character displays the uncanny ability to see through society's contrivances—even if he arrives at no definite conclusions. At the same dinner conversation he submits his sentiment that no man should own another in active defiance of the nobility's hold over the serfs. This audacious statement brings him closer to his would-be love, Tatayana, who looks on in admiration.She bears her heart to him, an offer he refuses. His explanation that marriage holds only disappointment seems to highlight his particular reaction to social norms. While he enjoys the freedom of nobility as well as explicit decadence, he broods on the critique of a society engaged in its own disgrace. His response to cynical nobility is alienation. His answer to the squalid institution of marriage is debauchery. And for these shortcomings he, himself, seems doubly jaded. He faces Tatayana as an apologist, and he seems embarrassed. After all, her offer of marriage is an opportunity to engender a true nobility of mind and spirit. Pleasure-seeking, and intellectualization are a vain reaction to what appears to be a cold and aggressive world. Tatayana exposes him in this respect. On the other hand, he has earned her love through his own keeping and defiance achieved through isolation. Onegin invites destruction on both himself and Tatayana in pursuit of this love. Viewers find him beseeching her in a room of marble, her royal husband asleep upstairs. Finally, she admits to him her continued love, which has not been destroyed, even by his neglect and the harshness of society. This admission is both a victory and a wretched fate.It is preferable to the fate he invites. His gesture promises to ruin Tatayana's honor as well as his own. For Onegin, the moment is a test of the conviction of love. He, therefore, marches directly to Tatayana where she sits reading in her husband's mansion to profess his love and defy institution at all cost. She turns him away forever to avoid total ruin.This fate is the fate of the 'superfluous man,' of the Russian who grapples with questions of self and places his will at odds with the forces of nature and society. The principle pathos of the film is the search for answers to those "accursed questions" which elude Onegin in the city and through the country landscape. Viewers peer through his windswept heart ultimately to dicover Pushkin's heroine, Tatyana, who like those answers, shall remain untouchable in the house of Nobility.
The original story is arguably the best piece of Russian literature. As such it presents a multifaceted reflection of Russian life of early nineteenth century and a compelling drama told lucidly with wit and subtlety.None can be applied to the movie we have to see. We are fed with ignorant clichés, belabored with shameless vulgarity and sodomized with lies that not just alter, but plainly kill the original story.Creators of the movie clearly deem their viewers to be incapable of subtlety. And they approach their audience as cunning salesmen whose task is to sell a cheap kitsch as a treasured masterpiece. Pushkin also could not rely on his readers' developed taste. But his novel lifted his readers up, this movie on the contrary, dumbs down the original to the level of the viewers.The movie cannot possibly be worse than it is.
Watching this can be like enjoying exquisite oysters on the half shell, complemented with the perfect champagne; very subtle and understated yet complex and sensuous. Ralph Fiennes and sister/director Martha Fiennes worked as a team to bring this classic piece of Russian literature to the screen. For her it is a first turn directing a feature, making a move like Ridley Scott from commercials to film. Production values are fantastic, filled with rich textures without the self-indulgence and pomposity which are a common fault in period films, often at the expense of pacing and storytelling. The cinematography and editing are fluid and musical, languorous in areas without stagnation. Here are dynamics which are not unlike looking at paintings of Masters, displaying contrast between the bleakness of the Russian winter and the warmth and security of wealth and privilege. Magnus Fiennes, another family member created the soundtrack and borrows from period contemporaries like Lizst without the recycled/ripped-off path of least resistance. The use of duduk and strings casts a haunting spell in the ice skating scene. Casting here is perfect. Liv Tyler is impressive as Tatiana, embodying an elegance and organic sophistication without affectation. To watch her deal with the anguish resulting from rejection of her love is excruciating. Toby Stephens as Lensky is wonderful, the complete photo-negative to Onegin. There is a moment where he is playing chess, making a juvenile mistake and his reaction to the blunder is a brilliant bit of vacuity, playing Lensky at the height of his intelligence which is at that moment, absent. Ralph Fiennes puts in, as usual, a phenomenal turn as Onegin. It's amazing how he pulls us in when playing the tormented lover. And upon further examination they are less-than-likable at that; the English Patient, End of the Affair and Onegin all moody, taciturn guys. It's the magnitude of his devotion, distress and passion that are so compelling, why we women are so crazy about him. You believe that for him love truly is his lord and master.(Lucky Francesca Annis.) Why people haven't commented lavishly on this gorgeous gem I find mystifying. Perhaps the ending wasn't mainstream (happy) enough,....