Rasputin

Miracle man or a fraud? Saint or devil? Holy person or someone with good tricks to show? HBO's cinebiography of Father Grigori Rasputin doesn't reveal the mystery and always gives us more and more questions about one of the most influential and controversial figures of Russia during the kingdom of the last Russian tsar.

Played by Alan Rickman as an unstoppable enigma, Rasputin was priest, drunken, womanizer and troublemaker, gaining notoriety by helping sick people to get cure for things that were incurable, claiming to have seen the Virgin Mary and working as sort of an holy authority capable of performing miracles. His most famous patient (and strangely selected as the story's narrator) was Prince Aleksei (Freddie Findlay),hemophiliac and the only male child of the Romanov's, tsar Nicholas II (Ian McKellen) and Alexandra (Greta Scacchi), and as many knows the treatment works wonders, surprising everyone in the family and causing some doubts and jealousy among the Royal doctors, suspicious of such miracle maker, who seeks to interfere on the politics of the country. That involvement and his troubled behavior led to a conspiracy in which he was the main victim but taking with him the destiny of a nation and the end of an empire.

Favorable points: the great costumes and the detailed, spectacular art direction, and some insights about the main figure specially what concerns about his talent for predicting things like the death of one of Nicholas aides and the fall of the empire. The story, even with its focus on social and political issues, is simple to follow, very informative to viewers.

Less favorable points: those who deeply know about the man and his life won't find this film so satisfying or enjoyable. Uli Edel didn't put much vigor in this work, sometimes melodramatic and forced. The cast is good but they don't move us in the it was supposed to; Rickman is the best in show, really exposing some pain and some madness but he's not my favorite Rasputin. I suggest you to check Tom Baker's performance in "Nicholas and Alexandra" (1971) where he stole the show from the leading characters with an amazing realism, natural. He seems bigger than life but at the same time he looks real, believable. And let's face it, that was a better movie as well.

"Rasputin" doesn't stain the reputation of the man nor judges him; it just incites doubt in our heads in trying to figure out who he really was. A decent film, but far from being memorable. 6/10

Allen Rickman decided to become Rasputin. He did a lot of research, introspection and study. I fear for his soul. Historically as accurate as it could be, there are flights from and to events which are poetic license. Rasputin was an original, not a Barnum, nor a John the Baptist. The time in Russia from 1907 to 1917 was a catastrophe of Greek proportions. Masses were shot, murdered. The White Russians rebelled against the Communists and they had a war which rivalled the brutality of the Great War. Finally Lenin died and Stalin took over for thirty years of murder, failed five year plans, and total war against the Germans. Was Czarism really that bad?

Now, I'm normally not one for historical movies, but this film was absolutely magnificent. Beautiful performances from Alan Rickman, reminding us why he is one of Britain's great actors, along with Ian McKellen, another sterling performance from him. Greta Scacchi effectively underplayed the role of the Tsarina, while there was a brief but excellent performance from James Frain, who is another young actor to watch. It is very hard to find fault in this film, as it was so well directed, written, acted, with wonderful costumes and sets, although I didn't realise how many Russians had a perfect english accent(ba-boom-tish). Excellent work all round.

Grigory Yefimovich Rasputin was a controversial figure, but there can be no doubt that he was also a remarkable one, even if one also regards him as a charlatan. For an uneducated peasant to have risen to be the close friend and confidant of one of the world's most powerful monarchs is no mean achievement. What, however, caused him to live in the popular imagination was his own bloody murder in 1916, followed by that of the Imperial Family two years later in the wake of the Russian Revolution. Had there been no Revolution, Rasputin would today be a minor figure, forgotten by all except specialists in the history of early twentieth century Russia.

It is hardly surprising that there have been a number of films about him, the first- presumably an anti-Russian propaganda film- being made in Germany only a year after his death. "Rasputin and the Empress" from 1932 is remembered today less by film buffs than by it is lawyers, as it gave rise to a lawsuit which led to one of the leading cases in English libel law. Hammer's famously inaccurate "Rasputin the Mad Monk" from 1966 is essentially a horror film dressed up as a historical drama. (The inaccuracy starts with the title; Rasputin, a self-proclaimed "holy man", was never a monk). He appears in "Nicholas and Alexandra" from 1971, but only in a supporting role; as its title suggests that film deals primarily with the doomed Imperial couple.

This film is probably the best filmed version of his life that I have seen, despite one or two historical inaccuracies. The main reason is the fine performance by Alan Rickman in the title role. The historical Rasputin seems to have had great charisma and a certain spirituality; his claim to possess abilities as a faith healer may have been genuine. Combined with these qualities, however, were his notorious moral weaknesses; he was both a drunkard and a womaniser. (His enemies seized gleefully on the similarity between his surname and the Russian adjective "rasputniy", meaning "debauched"). His influence over the Tsar was not always a beneficent one, although it is noteworthy that he opposed the fateful decision- to go to war with Germany in 1914- which was eventually to lead to the downfall of the Romanovs. Rickman, often good when portraying morally ambiguous figures like Severus Snape in the "Harry Potter" films, brings out all these contradictory sides of his character, giving us a portrait of a strange, driven individual, both mystic and fanatic, holy man and sinner.

Ian McKellen, whose portrayal owes something to Michael Jayston's in "Nicholas and Alexandra" is good as the Tsar, a hesitant, nervous autocrat, a kindly family man but despotic ruler. I did not, however, care for Greta Scacchi as Alexandra. (I much preferred Janet Suzman). Scacchi, previously better known for playing sexually provocative temptresses in films like "Heat and Dust", "White Mischief" and "Presumed Innocent", never seems either sufficiently regal or sufficiently commanding. Alexandra was the dominant partner in her marriage, and the influence of this German-born woman over the Tsar was resented by many Russians, especially after 1914). At least Scacchi gets to keep her clothes on in this film; it is a popularly held, although inaccurate, belief that Rasputin was (in the words of Boney M) "lover of the Russian Queen", but this canard is not repeated in the film.

As a whole, the film is not quite as good as "Nicholas and Alexandra", lacking the earlier film's epic grandeur and visual splendour. It never, however, sets out to be a major epic of that sort, having been made for television rather than the cinema screen. As a made-for-TV historical drama it is very watchable. 7/10

HBO's "Rasputin" is an Emmy winning retelling of an old story around which swirls as much legend as fact. The film stretches the emotional and dramatic moments while condensing the history as it goes for the viscera with Rickman painting a sensationalized portrait of the enigmatic and shadowy title character. A stuttering drama dumbed down for prime time audiences, "Rasputin 1996" should be an entertaining watch for those who like a little history with their television dramas.