This is a very good film overall. Having grown up in Russia and being, as we would say here, `a great Pushkin's fan' ;-), I was caught between curiosity and caution when deciding whether I should even rent this film. Then I saw Ralph Fiennes name and thought that it could not be all that bad.so curiosity won. I was pleasantly surprised that the film is fairly faithful to the original. Not completely, of course, but when I think about horrible mutilations other filmmakers perform on marvelous works of literature, I'm very grateful that the producers of `Onegin' read the poem very well and chose scenes and changed some of them with care. I won't talk a lot about beauty of scenes in the film: it's a pleasure to watch. Here are some of the things I didn't like. First of all I was a little disappointed by the film's interiors. Several of them look very natural (some of the room's in Larin's and Onegin's houses). Others (like Petersburg palaces) more than anything resemble theatrical decorations. I don't think this was intentional, since the overall scenery is very realistic. Another objection is the lovemaking scene. I don't think it belongs or was needed at all. Was it just a due paid to modern filmmaking? Why not do Tatyana's dream instead (this is a meaningful symbolic scene in the poem, not filming it could hardly be an accidental decision, I would love to know what was the reason)? The third, kind of big problem is that married Tatyana is not clearly portrayed as the queen of Petersburg's society. This detail is very important for understanding of Onegin's character: a tragic figure who can only exist within the laws and decorations of high society - the very society he despises more than anything else. Tatyana, the queen of this society, a complete part of it and yet completely not involved with it, comfortably within and yet far above the chattering crowd - that very likely is the only thing Onegin can love. Unfortunately the question `am I noble enough for you now?' which Tatyana throws at Onegin during the climax scene of the film, does not fully convey that understanding and is an oversimplification compared to the speech that Pushkin's Tatyana gives to her fallen and still loved hero.
Add a Review
-
old-tuchka3 October 2000
-
btodorov23 November 2005Russians consider Pushkin's "Evgenii Onegin" one of the peaks of their literature, but to British drama actors/directors/composers Fiennes the work remained just a curiosity which could be easily brought to screen for a nice, and unambitious family project. Where Russian readers and western students of Russian culture see a vision of the decadence of Russian aristocracy, and a condemnation of the Ancien Regime, both in social, and cultural terms, the Fiennes saw a nice romantic interlude. The limited scope of the filmmakers'interest explains why the movie is successful in just one aspect - the two love scenes between Onegin and Larina are great, actually much better than what Russian actors would perform in the place of Fiennes and Tyler. But that's that. Everything else, including the duel, or the scandal between Lensky and Onegin, is dull, insipid and rather un-Russian. Fiennes obviously misunderstood the meaning of being "tired of life". Pushkin's Onegin was not a self-centered, self-sufficient and utterly satisfied English gentleman who speaks patronizingly to everyone in the country because "he knows things". He was a model for generations of Russian "malcontents": in a rigidly conservative society playing the "tired of life" was a social stand, not a psychological state. Onegin was a passionate man and his aloofness was a deliberate pretense (not that much different from Hamlet's delusive craziness). In short, the Fienneses had better screen a romantic drama without referring to Pushkin's masterpiece. Their movie is nice, watchable and enjoyable (well, Liv Tyler stars in it!), but their rendition of Pushkin's characters is so dissatisfying, the great poet might easily take offense.
-
mhi10 October 2000Strong and excellent performance by Ralph Fiennes (whom I haven't actually ever been a fan of - The Avengers and the English Patient didn't really help). His portrayal of a hard hearted man who only softens after killing who was perhaps his best friend to date in duel comes across exceptionally well and has gotten the better of me. Liv Tyler as the non-conforming country girl turned leading lady of the russian aristocracy and enchanting Onegin (Fiennes) regardless of her standing is simply breathtaking.
The music by Magnus Fiennes is perfectly matched to the sometimes startling, sometimes playfully lively, sometimes thoughtful, seldom serene scenes born of Martha Fiennes direction. The scenes and cuts are arranged so well and here and there are so surprising that they are a pure and constant pleasure to watch. (I must add that I have not yet read the poem.)
The Fiennes Clan has put up a masterly performance that has yielded a masterly film. I will certainly be curious as to their next joint project. -
Buddy-5118 August 2000Fine performances highlight `Onegin,' a generally interesting version of Pushkin's complex love story whose contemporary significance shines through the tortured souls of its two main characters. Ralph Fiennes stars in the title role as a 19th Century Russian aristocrat who, like many similar figures in Russian literature of that time, suffers from the attenuating effects of enervation and ennui. Though the recipient of vast sums of wealth and property at the death of his uncle, Onegin finds no meaning or solace in life as he lives it. He is as bored by the stifling superficiality of the privileged elite languishing in splendor in the fancy halls and glittering ballrooms of cosmopolitan St. Petersburg as he is by the domestic dreariness of the provincials residing in the bucolic countryside where one of his uncle's vast estates is located. In the latter setting, while visiting Vladimir - a poet he has recently befriended - Onegin becomes drawn to Tatyana the beautiful younger sister of the man's fiancé. Both Onegin and Tatyana reflect a remarkably modern sensibility in their temperaments. For instance, though the attraction between the two is a mutual one, it is Tatyana who makes the first move, pouring out her unbridled love for this newcomer in a letter which Onegin politely rejects because he fears the deadening of the soul that he believes will inevitably accompany marriage and fidelity. One can't get much more contemporary in tone than these two characters, one stepping well out of the accustomed bounds accorded her sex in affairs of romance and the other reflecting the fear of commitment that is such a staple of modern times. Yet, fate plays its cruelest hand at the end, as Onegin finds himself, years later, trapped in an ironic role reversal as the now-married Tatyana is forced to rebuff the advances of the obsessed, lovelorn man whom she still admits to loving. As in many bleak works of Russian literature, the character is forced to live out his existence in a hell of his own making, suffering the torment of regret without end.
The personal drama unfolds against the fascinating backdrop of the subtly changing society of 19th Century Russia, a country that, then and now, has seemed to be always several centuries behind its European neighbors in its moves towards liberalization in the areas of basic human and civil rights. We see clearly the struggle between the empty ritualism and entrenched barbarism of the past, as reflected in the continuing institution of serfdom and in gun duels fought over affairs of honor, and the enlightened philosophy of the coming world, as many young aristocrats begin to champion both the abolition of serfdom and the growing acceptance of love as the foundation of marriage. Indeed, the two young lovers cannot extricate themselves from the entanglements that often accompany a time unsure of its traditions. Onegin, for all his talk about freeing his serfs, is himself forced to participate in a duel that both horrifies and disgusts him. And Tatyana, for all her comments about only marrying a man she loves, succumbs to the pressure of tradition, ultimately agreeing to a marriage based on class, money and position. Here are two people caught in a world not yet ready for them, who are forced to settle for the compromises their society has deemed fit and proper.
This well-acted, well-written and well-directed film may seem a bit slow at times, but the intelligence of the dialogue, the subtle underplaying of the cast and the quiet beauty of much of the direction lead us into a strange world of the past that still has resonance and relevance for the world of today. -
DraculaJunior3 November 2004Only people with a British/American mind who never read Onegin in the original version can enjoy this. The movie is made in a British way, things that are being displayed in the film are more suitable for England, not Russia. Not to talk about the awful Russian music. The music is good and pretty well known in Russia, but... this was composed in the middle of the 20th century (some of it was used before as soundtracks to cult Russian films) definitely unsuitable for the time Onegin lived in.
Nevertheless, most of the world would think it's good movie, and it is. But the Russians would find it quite laughable and wrong. Hence this movie isn't REALLY good.
Fiennes and Tyler are casted well. -
"Onegin" is a fairly good attempt at capturing the spirit of the original. One should praise the work of costume designer, the sets are also quite methodically reproduced. But unfortunately there are some things that cannot but jar on the ear and on the eye of the viewer: Olga sings "Oy, tsvetyot kalina" - this song appeared only in the mid 50-s of the 20th century in one of the Soviet films. So it couldn't be sung in the 19th century. The same about the waltz : it's "Na sopkah Manchzhurii" - this waltz appeared during the Russian - Japanese war, about 1904. These details mar the impression for the Russian viewer very much because they are as ridiculous as jets in films about World War II. The film appears to be made of two easily recognized parts - one made by the American camera men, and the other - filmed by the Russian camera crew. They have absolutely different ways of building the frame and focusing on different things. So American camera work is more Hollywood-like, pompous, and sometimes in the first half of the film the characters are evidently ill-mannered, which disappears altogether in the second "Saint-Petersburg" part. Good manners is not walking about stiff and pompous as if one has swallowed a ramrod. It's natural grace, ease and delicacy. That's why Tatiana could hardly lie in the boat with her legs spread as if an obstetrician were being busy with her, even when no one could see. Lensky is a very complex character, difficult to portray on the screen. On the one hand he will definitely end, as Pushkin himself wrote, as a country squire, fat, negligently dressed and romantic to the end at the same time. His romanticism is pitiable. But at the same time he believes in it, he is a poet, he is young, passionate and delicate. It seems to me that that part was botched. Lensky is pompous and ridiculous, hopelessly provincial the way it was done. I know that a film should not follow the text of the book doggedly but the scene of the duel surprised me because if I am not mistaken they were fighting in winter. I hardly understand what for the window-mills (on the water!) are. But on the whole it is very touching to see that people are still interested in Russian classics and managed to convey that obsession with love (not meaning bedroom scenes), that divine madness taking place against the background of the imperial majesty of Saint-Petersburg.
-
MIKE-128028 June 2000Any film that opens with a carriage on runners being pulled through the snow has got to try really hard to fail. My wife and I spent the whole of this film entranced by the scenery, the exquisitely detailed sets and costumes, superb performances by all of the cast with a refreshingly thoughtful and adult dialogue and several surprising twists in the story. Liv Tyler delivered the most sensual performance I have seen in a film for quite a few years proving that you don't have to be naked and sweaty to stimulate an audience! I have not read the original story but I think this film may do for russian novelists what the recent spate of period dramas have done for Shakespeare and Jane Austen. The pacing of the film is slow and salubrious but definitely not plodding (sic. Angela's Ashes) You will be left wanting more but any more would spoil the plot. Don't miss it. Full marks.
-
allyjack28 September 1999An oddly sombre, if not depressing, choice as the closing night gala of the Toronto Film Festival, this tragic story of a nobleman who spurns an offered love then later seeks to reclaim it is dramatically rather inert and otherwise unexceptional. Ralph Fiennes rises well to the challenge of Onegin, conveying the character's shift from arrogance to desolation (his motives remain undramatized in some key respects, but the film is comfortable with its own mystery); Liv Tyler is also as good as she's ever been. The film's brooding atmosphere is sometimes highly effective (such as in an almost unbearably tense duel sequence); sometimes on the strained side, with the sound design introducing an almost other-worldly element into its dramatization of disengagement and decay. Its measured eerieness is never dull, but neither does it have either the visual or emotional sweep of a classic epic, and it ultimately seems lacking in much complexity: the prominence allocated to it by the TFF seems like a potentially counter-productive case of over-selling.
-
FlickJunkie-231 July 2000This is a truly wonderful film. It is an adaptation of the 19th century romantic poem by Alexander Pushkin about the tragic love affair between Evgeny Onegin (Ralph Fiennes) and Tatyana Larina (Liv Tyler). Evgeny has inherited his uncle's provincial estate and goes to the country to put his affairs in order. While there, he befriends Vladimir (Toby Stevens) who introduces him to Tatyana, the sister of his fiancé. Tatyana falls madly in love with Evgeny, but he brutally rejects her and leaves to return to St. Petersburg. Upon returning years later to find her married, his regrets ignite into a passionate and obsessive love for her.
There has been some criticism of the fact that this film was produced by Ralph Fiennes to give a project to his sister Martha (director) and brother Magnus (original music). Well, if this is the high quality wrought from Fiennes nepotism, we need more such collaborations.
In her feature film directorial debut, Martha Fiennes gives us outstanding imagery, precise period renderings, innovative camera work, and dramatic lighting. The locations, sets, costumes and props were fabulous. I especially loved the furniture. The scenes on the dock by the mill in the fog were eerie and chilling. One shot of Liv Tyler in a rowboat, shot through out-of-focus reeds in the foreground, was pure art. The extreme close-up of the inking of the love letter added to the power of the emotions being written. Remi Adefarasin (Elizabeth') added wondrous cinematography to the list of filmmaking kudos.
Ralph Fiennes delivers another superb performance as Evgeny. In the early scenes, he is cavalier, self absorbed, and arrogant to the point of being despicable. His stoical dismissal of Tatyana was ice cold. In the later scenes, he delivers a character so pathetically tormented by love that he wins back our sympathies.
This is by far the best performance I have seen by Liv Tyler. She was poised, graceful and lovely, and gave an extremely dignified performance. With this role, she has proven that she can move beyond the troubled teen type and play a character with substance.
This is intelligent and inspired filmmaking. I rated it a 9/10. The pacing is deliberate, so action junkies will want to pass on this film. However, for those who can savor a compelling love story with splendid imagery, this film should not be missed. -
ruby_fff5 March 2000It's a perfect venue for Ralph Fiennes - classic Russian tale of unrequited love. At first it's the intensity of first love from a young girl (Liv Tyler), later it's the unattainable predicament of the older man (Fiennes) who in turn yearns for her when she's married. Like she said, "It's too late". Deep down inside she may still love him, but she's an honorable young woman married to a soldier, in fact a prince - she's now of noble class living in St. Petersburg vs. her previous country setting (though she longingly preferred) - she promised to be a faithful wife to her husband.
The film is beautifully photographed: the complementing landscapes; the close-ups of the principal characters' faces; the calligraphic words magnified on the screen as she writes in ink. The music is very much a part of the storytelling: the piano notes intermittent; the violin heartstrings a-plucking - all very well integrated into the mood of the love story.
If you like classic costume drama, a Ralph Fiennes fan, a Liv Tyler admirer, yes, do see "Onegin". Martin Donovan being the prince suits me fine - I have no problem if Tatyana (Tyler) should eventually get over her mixed emotions Well, it is nineteenth century Russia when "women marry not for love", "to have the luxury of being in love, do it outside of your marriage or be a courtesan," so Tatyana was told by her aunt. (Donovan is the subtly striking male lead in most Hal Hartley films, e.g., "Trust"; he's outstanding as the gay father in Angela Pope 1996 "Hollow Reed"; also in "Portrait of a Lady", "The Opposite of Sex", and briefly in "Spanish Fly" and "Living Out Loud").
"Onegin" is a beautiful piece of work in and of itself. It's a labor of love from the Fiennes family: directed by Martha Fiennes, executive produced and performed by Ralph Fiennes, music by Magnus Fiennes. For another well-made costume drama, historical and complex, try Marshall Herskovitz 1998 "Dangerous Beauty" with Mary McCormick as a sixteenth century courtesan in Venice, with Rufus Sewell, Oliver Platt. For a change of perspective, to experience whole-hearted loving from a man, try Bernardo Bertolucci 1999 "Besieged" with David Thewlis and Thandie Newton.
Other Ralph Fiennes gems: the recent Neil Jordan 1999 "The End of the Affair" with Julianne Moore; the triumphant Anthony Minghella 1996 "The English Patient" with Kristin Scott Thomas, Juliette Binoche; the quietly wonderful Gillian Armstrong 1997 "Oscar and Lucinda" with Cate Blanchett.
Other Liv Tyler gems: James Mangold 1995 "Heavy" opposite Pruitt Taylor Vince; Bernardo Bertolucci 1996 "Stealing Beauty" opposite Jeremy Irons. -
t-a-shnitko11 May 2016I do understand that any film director has an own vision, but o my God!!!, this is an example of "misunderstanding" of Pushkin's poetry! First of all, the music used in the movie has nothing to do with Pushkin's time (XVIII-XIX century). Olga's song (Oh the Viburnum Blooms) is a very popular Soviet song written in 1949. The main theme of the movie is an interpretation of "On The Hills Of Manchuria" written in 1906 to memory of those who died during war with Japan, updated with gypsy guitar in this movie. Pushkin died in 1837, there is no way the movie's music corresponds to the Russian XVIII-XIX century culture or the poem's characters. Secondly, the most important elements of the poem like Tatiana's letter to Onegin, for example, are washed out of the movie. Tatiana is a 17-years old girl in love, the all her passion is in that letter!!! Then, why this movie is so dark? If authors thought about the poem as a tragedy (I associate the darkness with tragedy), then Tatiana shouldn't had to be married to such a handsome fellow like Martin Donovan in the movie. Based on the book,her husband was old and badly injured during a war. I stop criticizing the movie here, as there are different opinions and some of them a quite positive.
-
va3svd16 March 2003Excellent film!!! I was captivated by it, however, my wife fell asleep during the film. For those who enjoy Russian literature, this movie will captivate you; for those who have no exposure to it, it will not. So your preestablished experience will determine to a great extent your appreciation of this film.
The lead acting is superb! Ralph Fiennes and Liv Tyler are so good that they unfortunately show up everybody else. The setting, however, does not have much of a Russian feel to it, what with everybody trying to act French and all, which is very accurate to the time. (Thank *you* Peter the Great.)
As for the story, the movie is very faithful to the Pushkinian attitude. The story is very character-centred, typical to Russian lit. The change in Evgenyi Onegin (pronounced, "Yev-geh-ny Ah-nye-gin") is marked indeed. However, the character of Tatyana captivated me. Her faithfulness to herself and to her integrity, especially given the context of American film, is amazing. How refreshing to see a character turn down the opportunity to have an affair with the man she loves deeply out of loyalty and faithfulness to her husband whom she unfortunately doesn't really love. This is especially refreshing in light of prevailing attitudes towards marriage and in particular adultery. Liv Tyler portrays both the deep angst and yet the firm conviction of Tatyana beautifully.
I recommend this film heartily. I gave it a 10 in my rating, and I encourage anyone to view this film to escape the prevailing American Bruce Willis-type formula film, and allow this film to expand your perceptions and your mind, and to enjoy the challenge of seeing people grow, and thereby encourage yourself to do the same. -
doodah3672 October 2002I watched 'Onegin' twice in the space of two days, and I have to admit that the first time I watched the film - I hated it. I found it poorly written, slowly paced with huge jumps in plotline and character development - and just a bit of a waste of film. The second time I watched the film, I discovered a second level which enhanced a lot of the features that I felt were lacking on a first viewing.
For example, on the first viewing, I didn't realise how important costume and setting were to character development - and Martha Fiennes has worked well with symbolism to present the complete turnarounds in both Tatyana and Onegin's character - especially in the big 6 year jump in the film's narrative. Tatyana's dresses become more flamboyant as the film progresses (in fact, the first time we observe her she could almost be mistaken for a peasant with the headscarf, but by the end of the film she is far closer to Olga and her mother in style). She wears increasing amounts of jewellery as the film progresses also, representing her increasing desire to impress. However, she is still the same character and is still true to her original belief to repel any sense of adultery. This sort of symbolism is extremely important to the characters in 'Onegin', and is quite possibly overlooked on a first screening.
The film is also beautifully shot, a lot of it on location in Russia, which means the snow covered streets of Petersburg look little short of stunning on the screen. One of the films final scenes, where Onegin declares his undying love for Tatyana, is astoundingly beautiful, with the black of Onegin contrasting perfectly with the white of Tatyana - showing that they could not be further apart from each other, despite the mutual attraction. The social situation that pressured Tatyana into marriage makes any kind of formal relationship impossible.
However, I found the film quite poorly written, and the addition of a handful of one liners from Onegin took away from the potential seriousness of scenes. The writers may argue that they were trying to further the representation of Onegin as a sarcastic man apart from society - but I thought they were cheap tricks to get a giggle from the audience. Without the symbolism, the characters were quite poorly written, with no real reason for Onegin's sudden changes of heart or a decent image made out of the actual social pressure that girls of the period were put under to marry. The only scene which begins to extend on this is a comic one, so it doesn't really have the desired effect.
I think personal taste also comes into my apparent slight distaste for this film. It would not be the sort of film that I would watch out of choice.
6/10 -
yurivetrov11 November 2009If we imagine that somewhere there is a non-existent country. Thatcertainly can agree that the film is beautiful. But no more. Any educated Russian people laughing at this film. Of course it's music, especially the moment where Vladimir plays the piano Russian song))) This is not a Russian, it's a Soviet song of 1950 from a Soviet film. Also there is a waltz "On the Hills of Manchuria". It was written in 20 century. But this is not important. Very important that none of the actors did not pass the character of those heroes of which Pushkin wrote This is not just a desire to make a negative rating! I respect the Russian and American classics. I think that the Russian director's would never take Gone with the Wind
-
This film is a visual delight and a faithful adaptation of the famous Pushkin poem. The story revolves around a country woman who falls for a sophisticated man. Starring handsome Ralph Fiennes as the title character and winsome Liv Tyler as his star-crossed love interest, viewers will get caught up in the ebb and flow of the romance, as well as the innovative and beautiful techniques of film-making. ( A scene where Liv Tyler's character writes a letter is spectacular.) As the first setting in the desolate countryside gives way to the bustling city of St. Petersburg in the second half, change and surprise is integral to the slow, well-developed storyline. See it for Fiennes performance and the talents of his sister and brother who directed and scored the film, respectively. Recommended as a great film for a winter's evening by the fire.
-
youremythrill28 March 2001I wanted to love the movie so badly but Liv Tyler's performance kept that from happening. She's a beautiful girl, but she had that "deer in the headlights" look through the whole film. Also, she's got the grace and subtlety of a wrecking ball. I know she was supposed to be a country girl, but sheesh! And I can't think of a single language whose accent would produce "oool" for the English "all" ... Inuit maybe? It's hard to believe one critic pronounced her mastery of an aristocratic accent successful; it kept playing a tense game of hide and seek with my ears.
I wondered to myself how many feet of film were wasted in the creation of that ice skating scene? It seems it could've been so much more powerful with almost anyone in FrankenTyler's place. The only thing that redeemed the scene for me was Ralph's genuine look of devastation at its close. It's really hard to feel the potency of Tyler's unaffected gaze by that point when she's got that look on her face through the WHOLE movie! Ralph's pathos-drenched reaction (how DOES he do that?) to her mediocre action pulled it through. But Ralph shouldn't HAVE to work that hard. A more experienced actress would've pulled her own weight. I should probably just be grateful that Ralph DID have to work that hard and that I was lucky enough to get to see the results.
Enough about that poor Tyler girl! I'll just assume her intentions are good and it's all very Dickensian and she's supporting her poor father and her life is not within her control. Let's just hope that a waning of her interest in acting or a would-be suitor comes quickly along to save her from the degradation in which she too often finds herself when appearing in the same movie with someone talented like Ralph. If she'd stick to playing opposite Keanu Reeves or Antonio Banderas, I think everything would work out fine.
I thought Martha Fiennes' directing was very thoughtful and daring, first feature length effort or not. A couple places left me mildly jarred continuity-wise, but that's so insignificant compared to the many very beautiful and effective scenes I can still feel. I agree with someone who mentioned the strength of the opening sleigh scene. As in Dr. Zhivago and Bram Stoker's Dracula, there's just something really powerful about the sight of a snorting horse running at full throttle, transporting our characters to some unknown fate. I liked the staging and shooting (sorry) of the duel scene very much. It must have taken a lot of control not to have Vladimir go plunging slow motion into the icy water surrounding the action. Martha Fiennes must have quite a bit of confidence and restraint not to go that predictable route merely for the sake of the dramatic shot. The whole story oozes restraint (and its inherent frustrations) and she intelligently replied. Some nice symbolic visual gestures as well -- the moth and fly, the coffin in the closing scene, etc. Just gorgeous direction and camera work overall. She did such a good job of using the sets and locations to their best advantage and utility. Nothing seemed superfluous nor ignored. It all seemed so unified in intent.
Ralph's performance was predictably very good, but I think it could have been superb given even a halfway decent female lead against/with which to work (maybe it's my imagination but I swear I saw him inappropriately gritting his teeth and narrowing an eye! I kept waiting for him to burst out, "I just can't work with this stupid, clumsy girl!"). I know there aren't that many "doe-eyed ingenues" for casting purposes these days, but there had to be SOMEONE else available ... ANYONE! The scenes where Ralph shone were those in which Liv Tyler was completely out of range. Did you notice how few shots had them framed together? Whether this was a directorial decision to support the plot or a last ditch effort to de-emphasize the obvious disparity between the two leads' acting talents I'm not sure.
Also, that notary character seemed just way too angry, no? I think a long day of retakes with Liv might have taken its toll. And do you think it was just a coincidence that the poor girl was always lurking from behind columns, trees, reeds, etc.? I think what we were supposed to read as Tatyana's wary curiosity might have as easily been, in reality, a defensive maneuver on Miss Tyler's part when the other actors finally took to tossing catered goods at her out of sheer frustration ... not that an icy glare from Ralph Fiennes wouldn't be enough to send the poor pretty mouse running for the nearest hiding place!
I would love to see it made again with someone else in the Tatyana role. I sound so critical and I don't wish to. I feel frustrated that this project, so important to Ralph and Martha Fiennes that they'd produce it themselves, was kept from being sublime for me by the work of an inexperienced actress. It was like making homemade buckwheat pancakes then topping 'em off with fake maple syrup. Sure they taste good, but you just KNOW how much better they would've tasted with the real stuff. The Fiennes family I'm sure are, justifiably, extremely proud of their collaboration. Just think how young they all are and how many great things they've still got the time to create!
Pushkin's response, perhaps: "Where did my tragedy go? Who would shed a tear over the loss of that stiff? I mean, she's pretty, but ... where's she from anyway?"
P.S. I think we might have the making of yet another great tragedy here: "Onegin: the Casting of Liv Tyler". Imagine the heated discussions! Imagine the family conflict -- the threats of Boxing Days celebrated separately! In one scene, when faced with the thought of Liv Tyler's unwelcome participation, I see Ralph transformed into an unleashed lion! Spit flies from his twisted maw, "She is NOT Tatyana! This is not my vision of Onegin!" he snarls. He rushes Martha and fiercely bats the script from her hand. Loosed pages fly upwards! Then, mirroring the falling pages, we watch as he slowly, silently succumbs to the gravity of the situation, the resignation drifts down upon him like a heavy snow and that look of utter devastation grips his face in its iron mask. He barely gets hold of the arm of a convenient chair and somehow manages to slump into it. His head crashes into now unclenched hands, he's backlit and then alone on the soundstage, there's the silhouette of a broken man now violently sobbing for the dream that WAS and the reality that IS ... curtain falls. -
JuguAbraham3 March 2006Many viewers are quick to note the fine effort of the Fiennes family to bring a Russian literary masterpiece on screen in the English language. The Fiennes family need to be complimented for their dedicated work to bring such an important literary work closer to thousands who would never have heard the name of Yevgeny Onegin.
However, I would like to underline the work of Martha Fiennes--the director. This is a marvelous debut for a director. The pivotal point of the film is the letter of Tatyana to Yevgeny. If the viewer were to replace the images of the blue/black ink with red blood, the images could have been of a lover hurting oneself while writing the letter. Pushkin intended this savage intensity--Ms. Fiennes succeeds in capturing this on screen without the blood. After the letter is written, the writer cleans her fingers on the white dress. The director's detailed shots on the writing of the letter, the opening of the letter, and the refusal of the return of the letter are visually as important as any performance in the film.
Second, Martha Fiennes is to be complimented on the sartorial details of Tatyana. The gradual change in clothes--color-wise and wealth-wise--is structurally well done in tandem with the plot of Pushkin.
I particularly loved the sequences of Onegin staring at neck of his lost love during the concert--Ms Feinnes captures the mood eloquently with shots which could easily have been spoiled had the camera been placed in front of the two actors.
The opening shot of the sleigh drawn by horses is very Russian. Unfortunately, for Ms Feinnes, Russian director Igor Talankin's film "Tchaikovsky" had used similar imagery--only Talankin did it much better with striking effect.
The duel sequence is perhaps an important part of the film, if one recalls the writer Pushkin himself went through such an ordeal in real life--I do not recall if "Yevgeny Onegin" was written before or after the incident...But Ms Feinnes' duel sequence is comparable to those of Kubrick in "Barry Lyndon" or Ridley Scott's brilliant early work "The Duellists." It is equally interesting to note that Pushkin's work alludes to the importance of married persons remaining faithful to each other--in real life Pushkin demanded the same of his wife, but suspected his spouse was cheating on him and this forced the duel that wounded him in real life.
But what is the modern windmill doing in "Tsarist Russia"? The windmills in Tsarist Russia I believe had more spokes (or hands), if we were to go by the paintings of that era..
Ms. Fiennes' on the other hand has taken care of details that a male director would have perhaps overlooked--the postures of Tatyana in the boat hidden by the reeds. Ms. Fiennes has shown talent in many ways that recall the brilliance of Julie Taymor. I only wish Fiennes were a Russian director using Russian actors--the work would then have been so real. For an effort from a non-Russian, I applaud her work as a director and the contribution of her family to the finished product. So is the contribution of cinematographer Remi Adeferasin. The performance of Liv Tyler should be assessed against the opportunity the role offered--she was good but not outstanding--she has done better under the direction of Robert Altman. -
angles92424 August 2000This is truly a great and wonderful film! A marvelous adaptation of Alexander Pushkin's classic story about the love and obsession of Eygney Onegin for the beautiful Tantianna Ladin. Ralph Finnes is the young,dashing and playboy Onegin, who goes to settle his deceased uncle's estate in the country. There, he meets the young and beautiful Tantianna Ladin, played astonishingly well and seductively by Liv Tyler. Their love sets off a chain of tragic events that will forever alter their lives. A great tear jerker!
Besides an excellent cast and story, the scenery and majesty of the film is amazing. Filmed in England and Russia, the film gives viewers, a feast for the eyes. The camera work is so well done and every shot is done with such care and precision that it is absolutely breathtaking. Director Martha Finnes has truly outdone herself. The score by Magnus Finnes is also terrific and adds so much depth and feeling to the story.
The costumes are also something to be commended, they are so gorgeous and well made. Bottom line is: great movie for anyone who appreciates good literature and a good period drama. This movie moves along very slowly so action fans beware. However, romance lovers, don't miss this film. 9/10 -
bfogg-181729 September 2015Disclaimer for this review: the film is being judged on its own merits, not how accurately it adapts Pushkin's original novel-in-verse Eugene Onegin.
Onegin takes place in Russia at some time between the Patriotic War of 1812 against Napoleon and the abolition of serfdom in 1861. It follows the titular Russian nobleman, who is called to the backwoods from his lavish life in St. Petersburg when he inherits his uncle's estate. The story centers upon his alienation from the privileges of nobility and weariness with the customs that accompany his class. Those fond of tales of historical high-society courtship such as the more recent Downton Abbey will find Onegin to be worthwhile viewing. In fact, despite the animosity between France and Russia after the War of 1812, the prevalence of French in dress, mannerisms, and language means that this film could, if not for the names of the characters, be easily assumed to take place within the aristocracy of Paris.
While the original work Eugene Onegin was first published in 1833, 28 years before Tsar Alexander's emancipation of the serfs, Onegin muses upon the value of renting the land surrounding his estate and moving back to St. Petersburg rather than acting as its overseer. The idea is dismissed as absurd by his noble contemporaries, showcasing both Onegin's distaste for the traditions of his time and complete lack of concern for the opinion of his peers. This utter apathy is further revealed in Onegin's interactions with the neighboring noble family, particularly with the youngest daughter, Tatyana. Her older sister, Olga, is the fiancé of the poet Vladimir Lensky, and Onegin's disillusionment with the ideals expressed in Lensky's verse results in his alienation for all three. Even so, Tatyana confesses her adoration for the urbanite Onegin in a letter (addressed, as French was considered the language of sophistication in Russia at the time, to Monsieur Onegin). His answer to this admission comes only upon his reluctant acceptance of an invitation offered by Lensky. Onegin is told that it will be a small gathering for Tatyana's name day, but upon arrival finds that it is a full-scale ball, much like those that he had long ago grown tired of attending in St. Petersburg. As revenge against Lensky, Onegin dances with his fiancé Olga, resulting in her infatuation with the nobleman from St. Petersburg. Lensky is left furious as Onegin leaves the party to speak with Tatyana, coolly insisting that she abandon such childish notions as love before her innocence becomes her downfall. In return for Onegin's affront against him, Vladimir challenges him to a duel. Even when death is on the line, however, Onegin refuses to cooperate with the traditions of nobility, arriving to the duel late and appointing a servant as his second. Despite this, Lensky continues with the duel, resulting in his death. After this. while it is never shown on-screen, Onegin spends the next seven years traveling the world. When he returns, attending a ball much like those from before he departed for his uncle's estate, he finds that Tatyana has been married. Following the ball, he finds her at her home and insists that he was wrong to reject her. However, she rejects him much as he did after her confession, leaving the despondent Onegin to stand on the streets of St. Petersburg.
As is fitting for a film based upon a poem, the visual imagery is striking. The cynical Onegin's meetings with idealist poet Vladimir Lensky more often than not take place on a dock by a lake. The stirring of the lake in the wind reflects the growing resentment between the two, culminating in their duel on that dock under an overcast sky. After meeting Tatyana for her name day celebration, she and Onegin retreat to a somewhat dilapidated shed away from the manor, the peeling paint a stark contrast to the lavish ball they have excused themselves from. With that departure from the rules imposed by an aristocratic setting comes Onegin's cuttingly forthright rejection of Tatyana. Upon Onegin's return to St. Petersburg, the lighting in the ball where he meets the married Tatyana reflects the ballet he attended at the introduction of the film, creating a literary framing effect. inclusion of a coffin in the frame as Onegin departs down the snowy, overcast street reflects the figurative death of Onegin's hopes and dreams.
While not an exceptionally profound story, the characters of Onegin are handled well, as is essential for any drama, and offer an adequate glimpse into not only the social context of 19th century Russia but its philosophical quandaries of self-definition in the face of social constraints. -
Caledonia Twin #124 October 2000I have to say that I was a bit hesitant about seeing this film for several reasons. I had read Onegin in the original Russian, and frankly I mistrusted the abilities of a film-maker to convey a true sense of the story and the life and mood of Imperial Russia while also catering to the tastes of modern film audiences. But as a fan of the work of Ralph Fiennes and Toby Stephens, I took the chance on this film, and I am glad that I did. Onegin was fantastic. I have to agree that this film is not for action fans, but everything came together spectacularly in Onegin: the acting, the dialogue, the haunting music, the beautiful cinematography, the subtle timing and angle of each shot in the film. I was, moreover, surprised by the superb acting of Liv Tyler. The high point of the film, with the unveiling of Tatiana's letter and Onegin's growing passion, is well worth the anticipation. Fienne's portrayal of Onegin is realistic, absolutely riveting... He is a man jaded by opulence and overindulgence, trapped in his indolence and boredom, cool and reasoning and underneath it all, absolutely miserable, a man who comes to realize too late what flames of passion burn within him, which he attempts to "beat down with his reason"... His torment creates the most compelling kind of tragedy: the tragedy that compels us to consider what might have been. My rating: 9/10
-
wisewebwoman2 July 2001With no substance. Warning*****possible spoilers**** I am an admirer of both Ralph and Liv but there seemed to be no connection, not to mention any passion, between them. Not enough screen presence together to generate even a tepid cup of water and certainly not the raging inferno meant to be generated here, though at separate times in the protagenists' lives. The difficulty with movies like this is that there has to be a plot to sustain the audience involvement and this movie requires more than what is happening here. I was unclear on Onegin's motivation, for his disappearance for 6 years, for his rejection of Tatyana at the outset. If he was such a cad and a heel he could have taken advantage of her and he did not. Why? Hitting on her engaged sister was also a plot contrivance without much motivation. The only time Onegin looked animated at all was when he was with the friend that he subsequently shot in a duel. The cinematography was wonderful in this, the costumes magnificent and the sets incredible. I loved the way Liv moved. She has a style all her own. Ralph disappointed me. He was full of "brood" and "dissipation" but never did I sense the passion he portrayed in his letter to Tatyana. She does much business with her eyes and bee stung lips, he does much marching around St. Petersburg with swirling coats. A very pretty hollow movie. I ached to love it, but could not engage. Pity. 6 out of 10.
-
Alenchik22 August 2000My perception of the film was greatly influenced by the close familiarity with Pushkin's novel-in-verse I've acquired through numerous readings of the text both in Russian (my native tongue) and in several English translations. Thus, (nitpicking?)comparison of the cinematographic version to the literary original was pretty inevitable as I watched the film. I'm surprised by all the positive reviews I see here for I think that this movie is simply pathetic and laughable. Its portrayal of the characters, the times, the themes is grossly inadequate. Most importantly, it completely misses the mood (or, rather, the many moods) of the novel. Too many of the interpretations on the part of the director and actors are preposterous, and - worst of all - one-sided. The vapid Liv Tyler is entirely unfit for the role of passionate Tatyana, and, as a result, her performance is a miserable failure. For one, Tatyana wouldn't be caught dead singing cheesy Russian romance songs. Fiennes as Onegin doesn't deliver either. The duel scene, while visually impressive, is painfully out-of-place and overdramatized. The very atmosphere of the film is ridiculously misrepresented...
Although I couldn't keep a sardonic grin away practically for the entire duration of the movie, I realize that I may be misjudging the value of the film and the achievements of the filmmakers because of my preconceived ideas of what "Onegin" should be on screen or on stage. Undoubtedly, attempting to render an authentic portrayal of the work that serves (almost unarguably) as the foundation of modern Russian literature and trying to depict with accuracy the most renowned (anti)hero of Russian literature - Onegin - is a great (unsurmountable?) challenge. Does that mean that any attempt should be met with admiration nevertheless? I'm still trying to decide.
The film suffered from the incredible hype that preceded its premiere because it did not live up to the expectations of most who impatiently awaited its release. -
Peegee-321 July 2000Although I saw this film several months ago, its images and characters remain vividly with me. Martha Fiennes, as a first time feature director, certainly understands the visual medium she is dealing with. The scenes of snow and mist over water, are a significant contrast to the sumptuous indoor scenes, as though nature itself reflects what lies in the human heart...that all the wealth and lavishness created by man cannot assuage. Ms Fiennes very wisely saw this verse play as a vehicle for her talented brother, Ralph. His ability to portray a brooding, alienated...yet passionate man is extraordinary, in my opinion. Although Liv Tyler is very beautiful and was a knock-out in that red ball dress, I wasn't as convinced by her performance as others who have posted here. I would have preferred an English actress, Polly Walker, perhaps. In any case, I loved this film and have every intention of seeing it again.
-
PatrynXX9 June 2003(spoiler)
This movie is rather depressing since nobody really wins. But set that aside, I found the costumes were quite nice. The emotion was very real.
But apart from that, the movie really requires a bigger budget. The pace of the film is absurd. At 105 minutes, the movie seems short.
Whats worse is the score is among the worst I've ever seen. I might have given the film at best an 8, but the score dragged it to a 6. It might have been worse had I not noticed the powerful acting job from Liv Tyler. After such good jobs like that, I can see how she got the LOTR job.
A comment on the dvd. It's fully featured except with one notible item missing. A total lack of english subtitles. Or closed captioning. Someone at the studio seemed to think it was better just to put the spanish subtitles on it and anything in english. A pity.
6/10
Quality: 7/10 Entertainment: 4/10 Replayable: 1/10 -
Nikos-1224 May 2000If ever one needed evidence of the rampant nepotism in the movie business (and the Coppola family provide plenty anyway), then this film would be sufficient. Starring Ralph Fiennes, directed by his sister Martha and with a score by brother Magnus, Onegin appears to be something of a family concern.
In a recent interview, however, Ralph was entirely unapologetic - and so he should be. The close relationship between the lead and the director is of great benefit to the film, bringing it a tightness and a focus that a very complex character demands. Martha Fiennes has a background in directing commercials, and it shows. Every shot is perfectly composed, not a frame wasted without something symbolic or beautiful. It is a shame, then, that the subject for such technical skill is so uninspired. Adapted from a novel, written in verse, by Alexander Pushkin, the story concerns Eugene Onegin, an impecunious nineteenth-century Russian aristocrat who is bored with Petersburg. Fortunately, his uncle dies and leaves him a large country estate. He moves in and becomes friends with a local gentleman, Vladimir Lensky (Toby Stephens). Lensky is engaged to Olga (Lena Headley), a local woman whose sister, Tatyana (Liv Tyler), is both beautiful and intelligent. Not surprisingly, Onegin stays. The love story that follows is extremely slow, but very well acted by Fiennes, a picture of smug misery throughout, and, more surprisingly, by Tyler, who knows exactly when to look radiant and virginal and when to cry pitifully. The supporting cast is the usual collection of British character actors, playing the usual collection of vapid snobs and rude old ladies. Although they are effective in their roles, the film is carried by the leads who really are not given enough to fill the running time. Technically brilliant, Onegin is flawed by a stolid script.