Nikolaus und Alexandra

When Robert Massie's monumental work, Nicholas and Alexandra, first came out in the last sixties, I was amazed he was able to get as much information as he did on a subject that Soviet Russia was petrified of. It became a sort of standard for all future researchers on the fall of the Romanovs. The movie soon followed and it, too, was fairly accurate. Obviously, it was impossible to cover so much of a story in a three hour time-frame, but some important details of Nicholas' and Alexandra's reign was missing: where was Anna Vyburova? Where was Elizabeth Feodorovna, Alix's sister? These might seem small criticisms but they did play a significant part in the story. I was amazed by how much they matched actors appearances with their historical character: Michael Jayston is a spitting image of Nicholas, physically as well as his personality. Laurence Olivier is quite perfect as Count Witte, Janet Suzman is also a mirror image of Alexandra. The movie could have benefitted from more music in the background, especially at crucial moments. I kept waiting for a swell of instrumental music and... Nothing! Fortunately, I saw this movie when it first came out on TV and remembered the scenes that were cut when it came out on video (Why these scenes were cut is beyond me: The deciding vote creating the Bolshevik Party where Stalin and Lenin meet; a touching scene where Nicholas explains to Alexis the meaning of "war in the Balkans (July 1914)" and not to worry; Alexis' fall on the bob-sled on the steps in the house in Tobolsk and after Nicholas' scolds him he shouts in tears, "Why did you abdicate for me? I could have helped Russia!" All in all, however, it's the best we have so far on this period of history and a must-see for all Romanov students.

While this is indeed a long film, it's worth the time spent if you enjoy historical epics. The writing, direction and acting all come together very nicely in creating the peculiar dichotomoy of Nicholas II as doting father, dominated husband, and apparently well-meaning but ultimately naive and incompetent absolute ruler. I'd be curious to know just how true a portrayal of Nicholas as monarch this was. Was he really a paternalistic czar who simply didn't understand that the world was changing around him in ways he couldn't come to terms with? Or was he really as brutal a tyrant as most of his forebears were? Whatever the truth was, in this film you can't help but feel sorry for him as he makes one bad decision after another that inevitably send him down the road to insurrection and abdication, and he and his family into imprisonment and doom. Michael Jayston certainly looks the part, and he's no slouch in the acting department here.

Janet Suzman does a wonderful job as the czarina Alexandra. If it was possible for anyone to be even more detached from reality than Nicholas, she certainly makes Alexandra come across that way. In fact, it's hard to feel as sympathetic for her as one does for Nicholas; the way Suzman plays her, it's no wonder the Russian people disliked her so much.

Tom Baker is utterly believable as Rasputin, especially with those great staring eyes of his, and Laurence Olivier gives an excellent turn as the prescient prime minister Count Witte. The scene where he is vainly trying to persuade Nicholas not to call for the general mobilization and to avoid going to war against Germany and Austria is truly sad to behold. The actors playing Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and Markov all present the Bolsheviks as the most implacable of enemies.

One last character that I thought was particularly well-played was that of the tsarevich, Alexis. I don't recall ever seeing the young man who played him in anything else, but he does a very fine job here. He alternately comes across as tragic, sickly, and wan, completely out of step with the rest of his vivacious siblings, or as possessing a bitter, vengeful, and imperious spirit out of proportion with his age. I thought one of the most chilling scenes was the one where Nicholas is talking with him after Alexis has attempted suicide, in which Alexis is angry with his father for abdicating on his behalf. I certainly came away from it imagining what the consequences to Russia would have been if Alexis had ever successfully come to the throne.

By all means, try to see this film in its uncut, full 189 minute run. There are a couple of important scenes that were cut from the movie for general video release, and some of them help to further develop key characters. All in all, "N&A" spectacularly showcases the tragic final years of a glittering dynasty that makes the Windsors look frumpy by comparison.

It may have something to do with the fact that I was at Princeton at the same time as the screenwriter's hemophiliac son, but everyone seems to be falling over themselves in finding fault with this nearly perfect movie. Tom Baker didn't "fade into obscurity," he became the most famous Doctor Who. The principals are exemplary and totally true to every historic account I've read. One commentator mentions inanely that Nikolaus was a cousin of King George while Alexandra was a granddaughter of Queen Victoria. Excuse me folks, we all know that. It makes them first cousins, which is one of the reasons the heir to all the Russias had a deadly hereditary disease. (Nikolaus, George V, and Kaiser Wilhelm were all first cousins.) This movie knocks one out with its combination of costume drama and realism. I don't make ten favorites lists but if I did it might be there. An absolute must see, over and over again.

This truly beautiful movie with considerable artistic value should not be watched for its historical accuracy or its lack of geographical precision. It is mainly a story about a marriage of two weak but lovable people who somehow should not have been where fate put them. You could call Nicholas and Alexandra an anti-monarchistic manifesto.

The script really is first rate, it doesn't matter that all the characters are far more English than Russian, what counts is the way a tragic situation unfolds in front of the viewers. For many the last czar probably was a monster as he ordered the death of hundreds of thousands. Yet watching the movie you want to believe that he is the victim of circumstances, far removed from everyday life and a husband and father who cares deeply and, in spite of all his outrageous decisions and non-decisions, wants „to be good". Strange as it seems, but the intimate scenes between him and his wife are the highlights of the movie, as they really bring out the affection between two people who are attracted to each other although they are only too familiar with each other's flaws. It makes the tragic ending of the movie all the more sad.

I had the chance to visit Nicholas' palace in Yalta a few years back. It is full of family snapshots, as the czar was an avid photographer (and also movie maker). It is striking how modern those pictures are, how relaxed and „middle class" the imperial family, always in bathing suits or some elegant leisure wear, appears. In a strange way the Russian emperor comes through as being much less crusty than his contemporaries on the throne of Britain, Germany or Austria-Hungary. It gives you the idea that he was a modern man. Strangely, whenever he himself is in the photos, he is never in the center of the picture but always somewhere in a marginal position, seeming to be either bemused or slightly embarrassed. What a sad career!

An interesting side-effect of the movie is the fact that it shows that at the outset of World War I the crowned heads of Europe, many of them related to each other and on relatively intimate terms, could have prevented the bloodshed. They failed colossally and thus sealed the fate of a continent that still tries to find unity and a common denominator.

"Nicholas and Alexandra" is one of the last of the grand, sweeping epics that dominated the box office in the 50's and 60's. With the new wave of young, reckless directors who took to the scene in the 70's this kind of filmmaking seemed strangely dated. Ironically enough it kind of mimics the fate of the Romanov family, holding on to ideals that can no longer protect them. The genre, which had started with aplomb with movies like "Gone With The Wind" didn't draw the numbers it used to, and after seeing this movie I can't help but think of what a shame that is.

The movie is off to a slow start, and doesn't really grab the viewer until after the introduction of Rasputin. From there on in it's pure cinematic joy to witness the fate of the Tzar and his family unravel.

The actors do a tremendous job. It's obvious that the producers wanted their actors to look as much like their characters as possible, and while this doesn't necessarily strengthen the movie by itself it clearly gives it a stronger feel of authenticity. Furthermore they perfectly embody their flawed characters. The czar, beautifully played by Michael Jayston is a warm, caring man who unfortunately is totally unfit to be a czar. He is out of touch with his people, and feebly clings to his autocratic power. Jayston manages to portray an almost absurd certainty in his divine right, and ability to rule while at the same time exposing his uncertainty and fright. Janet Suzman is equally impressive as the loving, but domineering Alexandra.

The look and feel of the movie is also fantastic. The jaw-dropping visuals of Russia perfectly accommodates the story, and the music is wonderful all the way through. The pace is slow, and it's easy to see why critics who had just witnessed the exhilarating pace of movies like "A Clockwork Orange" or "The French Connection". But this was how these kinds of movies were made, and "Nicholas and Alexandra" does not shame the genre. It's actually a beautiful end to a spectacular genre which is well worth a look for anyone with a soft spot for David Lean-like movies.