When MGM adapted Anna Karenina in the thirties, after the production code and the Legion of Decency were in effect, they had to make a lot of changes to the book. And were almost told to drop the suicide.

That’s really amazing, Fraser, thanks for the head’s up!

Not having seen “Love” (though I’d like to now), I just wanted to know if they had indeed turned her into some kind of tragic (or not-so-tragic in the alternate ending) heroine. She certainly isn’t one. Of course, the interesting and most important bit is that they made two endings for different audiences. This was a lot more common in the silent era (as editing a film was a bit easier then without having to worry about the dialogue) and differences between US and European versions were often more dramatic than they are today. (See the history of Abel Gance’s “Napolean” to see how much that got changed when it crossed the ocean.)

I didn’t think it would be good to extend the piece by giving both the novel’s plot AND the movie’s plot, but you’re right, that probably would have been worthwhile to show the differences that already existed in the movie before the ending changes.

No, I think she’s a selfish woman who kills herself out of an “I’ll show them” attitude, not any kind of true despair.

If the film (even the one with the sad ending) portrays her any other way (like selflessly giving up Vronsky for his good - which she does *not* do in the book) they had already fundamentally altered the point of the original story. Tacking on a happy ending is just the icing on the cake, as it were.