Rasputin

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.

Rickman's Rasputan is not only scary, but at times funny. The story of the downfall of the Russian Kingdom and the man and the myth that was Rasputan is now one of HBO better movies. The production value of this made for cable movie is better than most box office duds that try to call themselves period pieces. Rasputan rivals Reds with a better story of the Russian peoples struggle during World War 1 and the start of communist (Soviet)control. Alan Rickman carries the movie as the star of the film. His character acting surpasses other great actors such as Al Pacino and Tim Curry. Without talking, Rickman's use of his eyes create a Rasputan more horrific than any other adaptation to date. A great movie with a powerful ending.

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

OK, you can look at this film in two ways - either as a good play, or as an historical drama. It works both ways, although my main quibble would be that one is left with little real idea of why the revolution took place and what Rasputin's role in this was. For that reason, it could have done with being a bit longer and more detailed. Rickman plays Rasputin with humour and humanity - not the one-dimensional monster of most other films about him, which is a good thing from both a dramatic and historical point of view. Ian McKellen as Nicholas II has sweetness and dignity although he is probably too old for the role, and the scenes where he almost loses his temper are (historically) highly improbable! I have no problems with Greta Scaachi's acting, but from a historical point of view her portrayal of the Empress is altogether too vulnerable and lacking in fight; and why the German accent in certain scenes!?

I doubt there will ever be a film that pleases all of the various fans/critics of Nicholas and Alexandra, Rasputin and the Russian revolution; this one is better and less sensational than most.

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