Doctor Zhivago

Pasternak's novel was a love story tucked in an epic set against the turbulent Russian revolution. The novel itself, with its story of illicit love in time of war, was almost the GONE WITH THE WIND of its day. When the time came to make the movie the task fell, quite naturally, to epic film maker David Lean, winner of the Academy Award for his last two pictures (BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA). Lean and screenwriter Robert Bolt (A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, LAWRENCE) did a superb job of distilling the essence of the novel, but left out many characters and events in their 197 minute motion picture (which, until the advent of Lucas and Spielberg, was one of the highest grossing movies ever). Robert Bolt won a deserved Oscar for his work on DOCTOR ZHIVAGO, for his job was formidable. But now that Pasternak's epic sweep was personified by Lean and Bolt, a television version was needed whose focus was Pasternak's (admittedly soap-opera) story without sacrificing any of the other events for time limitations.

The television version that finally appeared was barely an hour longer than Lean's. It would be unfair to compare this version to Lean's, which had a powerhouse cast (Christie, Steiger, Richardson, Courtenay, Guinness), a director with an eye for the cinematic, and a superb script. However, when some of the same sorts of scenes appear, the new version seems like a hollow echo.

This new version also truncates the novel. The dialog is pedestrian. In the old days British television would make adaptations of novels this size that went on for months (ZHIVAGO could sustain it). The interiors were videotaped like stage presentation and the exteriors were shot on grainy film, but the breadth of great novels came across. Four hours was not time enough to do justice to Pasternak. Everything seems to boil down to sex in this version, which is daring -- for the 1960s!

On the plus side, it must be said that Keira Knightley (Lara) is pure sex on the screen. Her character is hardly the thrall of Komarovsky she is in the novel (the victim she is in Lean's movie). Again, this might have been daring forty years ago. It seems the writers of this movie missed the other revolution (the sexual revolution) that might've gotten them past this approach to the material to focus on the larger view of the Russian revolution the novel presents. We had the love story, done a whole lot better, decades ago. We're still waiting for a version that does justice to Pasternak.

Well, I was truly disappointed in this version of Doctor Zhivago. I have read the Boris Pasternak book and seen David Lean's movie version and this new version simply does not compare. The actors were simply too young for their part and were not able to convey the emotions and complexities of Yuri and Lara. I realize the Movie Industry is trying to attract a younger crowd these days but what was the Casting Director thinking of when he cast the part of Lara? She certainly was not believable as Lara nor a Russian!

It may be somewhat sacrilegious to admit this, but I actually prefer this production to the David Lean classic. That is an admission however that I do not take lightly, the Lean version having left an indelible impression on my younger life and the beautiful Lara's Theme having haunted me since I first saw the original version on television back in the 1980s. No, when I sat down to watch this 2002 adaptation of the Boris Pasternak epic I was all prepared to be both disappointed and resistant to a newer version of the Omar Sharif/Julie Christie favorite - so what happened? Why am I now sitting here so impressed and involved in what should by all accounts be a poorer step child to the colorful, star-filled 1960s movie. Simply put this movie has the advantage of time. A whole hour longer than the other movie that extra time gives the production of filling in some of the blanks that inhibited to original and more fully exploring the human relationships and interaction between characters. Matheson may not have the acting ability of Sharif but what he does have is the opportunity to more fully realize the character of Zhivago. In this sense this movie is more faithful to the source material and all the better for it. Matheson plays the story of Zhivago, a man brought up in the shadow of tragedy who feels the pull of loyalty to his wife (and childhood friend) Tonya and a deep infatuation for Lara. With the violence of World War I and the Russian Revolution as a backdrop, Zhivago travels through life torn by conflict. Less colorful than the original this mini-series compensates with a strong, well defined script and some star turning performances by Sam Neill and one-time Bond girl Maryam D'Abo (as Lara's mother). Many have also dismissed Keira Knightley in her role as Lara, but I found her both competent and powerful in the role. I found myself both involved in her story and convinced by her portrayal - she was certainly a different Lara than the one depicted by Christie some four decades ago, but one no less realized or compelling. In fact, I would go as far as to say that Knightley's Lara is a more rounded character than Christie's, no doubt due to Knightley's impressive screen presence, but also the longer screen time afforded to her character. One device I found both clever and interesting was real archive footage from the period that is woven into the story in a fascinating manner. Included on this DVD is a text biography of author Boris Pasternak as well as over an hour of interviews with the cast. Prepared to be surprised by this DVD and be prepared to fall in love with a whole new version of the DOCTOR ZHIVAGO story.

Never having seen the original version of Dr Zhivago I can't really compare,but for me Keira Knightley just doesn't work in the role of Lara. This is a woman that a previously proper moral man would betray his wife for. That just doesn't ring true. Tonya was sweet,beautiful and loving, why would Yury risk that for this Lara? The chemistry just wasn't there. Am I also the only person that thinks that Keira isn't such a great actress? Lots of pouting and over pronunciation isn't a substitute for fine acting. Sam Neil was suitably menacing,though I didn't feel like he had such a hold over Lara. Kris Marshall, an actor that I really like wasn't convincing as the Pasha/strenlikov character. Hans as Zhivago was adequate, but so nice to look at that I can forgive him any acting shortcoming. My favourite performance was from Alexandra Maria Lara as the betrayed wife. I found myself swallowing hard and blinking back tears when she confronts Lara.All in all not a bad way to pass 4 hours of ironing-considering it was a free gift with the newspaper!

In a word, UGGHH. This tv version of Zhivago is still a poor adaptation of the book and many notches below the 1965 David Lean film. Entire important characters are left out, like Evgraf Zhivago. Although everyone seems to be saying it's so much closer to Pasternak, I don't see it. Many of the scenes are really copied right out of the Lean film... only more poorly done. Hans Matheson is not terrible as Zhivago, just not very interesting. He's nice looking in a boy actor kind of way but not nearly as striking as Omar Sharif. His poetry is left totally unexplored. Keira Knightley, an Uma Thurman clone, is just plain bad. All she can do is look dumbfounded with her gawking mouth hanging open. Sorry, Julie Christie she ain't. There is nothing magnetic about the character. Tonya is an underwritten character in the book, and I think Alexandra Maria Lara does about as good a job with her as can be done. While many criticize Geraldine Chaplin in the Lean version, I find her very moving and certainly striking looking. While I don't think Chaplin is a better actress than Lara, she's more memorable. Reviewers have been gushing over Sam Neill as Komarovsky. Neill is a favorite actor of mine, but I think he's really only so-so here. Rod Steiger seemed far more Russian, nastier and more self-loathing (a key part of the character). Neill was merely slick to me.

Giacomo Campiotti filmed this in Prague and in Slovakia which, at first glance, would seem to be a more real location than Spain, Finland and Pinewood Studios where Lean's Zhivago was filmed. But it doesn't feel that way. It doesn't look open and vast. The villages don't look like Russian villages, and Prague, beautiful as it is, doesn't look much like Moscow. A lot of times, it doesn't even look that cold. There is a curious lack of the cyrillic alphabet. Perhaps it was too expensive to erect old cyrillic signage. The use of background Russian speech is interesting but jarring. It just makes me wish the entire film was in Russian. The music is just an odd hodge-podge. In the second half he uses what sounds like classic Slovakian music which sounds totally wrong in a Russian story. I found the guitar strumming more annoying than anything. Yes, "Lara's theme" does get under your craw, but at least it adds some real emotion to the Lean film.

I enjoy the 1965 film, but it's a wonderful guilty pleasure, I don't see it as a great work of art. This BBC version is just drek. I'm hoping a good Russian director will tackle Zhivago and show us how it's really done. I would have love to see how the director of the Russian film "Vor" would deal with it, or the recently departed Elim Klimov (director of Rasputin and Come and See) whose talents would have perfectly matched the demands of adapting Pasternak.