The "Anna Karenina" at the University this week is certainly not Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina." True, the essentials of the plot remain, and such changes as have been made are justified by the necessity of condensation. But the spirit of the original has been lost and the characters vitiated beyond recognition. Only Anna and Alexei Karenin retain a spark of life; the others are bloodless lay-figures. Least excusable is the mutilation of Konstantin Levin--in the book a sensitive, passionate, inarticulate, self-contradictory idealist, but reduced in the picture to a formal and awkward lover. Frederick March was no more successful with Vronsky, although the part was loss difficult. Even Stiva, Holly, and Kitty were handled without imagination.

To admirers of Tolstoi, then, "Anna Karenina" is sadly disappointing. Admires of Garbo will feel differently. She is definitely Garbo throughout, not Anna, but nevertheless gives a convincing performance. (This is a trick common among Hollywood stars who are personalities, not necessarily actresses.) The picture as a whole, in fact, is not too unsatisfactory when considered merely as a picture, not as the translation of a novel; it is good Hollywood romance.

"The Farmer Takes a Wife" is pleasantly quiet. It is essentially an idyllic love story concerning Janet Gaynor and Henry Fonds, but the triteness of plot is relieved by the varied minor characters and by its background, the Erie Canal in Pre-Civil War days. The conflict between railway and canal, the lure of western emigration, and the farmer's love of the land are all presented calmly but with force.