Nicolas et Alexandra

"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.

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.

At the time of it's release in December of 1971, "Nicholas and Alexandra" must have seemed like an anachronistic piece of film-making, especially when compared with fellow Best Picture Nominees, "A Clockwork Orange", "The French Connection" and "The Last Picture Show". Based on a best-selling work of popular history, it was film making on a grand scale, boasting for it's cast a veritable who's who of the English speaking stage, a sweeping love story spanning many years, thrown over thousands of miles, using the conflict of World War I and the Russian Revolution as it's background. It must have seemed to many like the best film David Lean never made. And superficially it does resemble Lean's epic of a few years earlier, "Doctor Zhivago". Indeed three of Lean's close associates, Producer Sam Spiegel, Production Designer John Box, and Cinematographer, Freddie Young all shine in this production. Unfortunately having arrived late in the historical epic film cycle, it was largely dismissed at the time of it's release by critics, but time has revealed it's many virtues.

Produced with lavish care and attention to detail by Sam Spiegel for Horizon Pictures, "Nicholas and Alexandra" is among the last of the great "thinking man's epics" and one of the best. This is due in no small measure to the wonderful screenplay by James Goldman. Goldman, who also scripted "The Lion in Winter" and "Robin and Marian" had a fine ear for dialogue, and "Nicholas and Alexandra" is a pleasure to listen to as well as to behold. Like Robert Bolt's "Lawrence of Arabia", Charles Wood's "Charge of the Light Brigade" and Robert Ardrey's "Khartoum", all fine historical epics, Goldman's "Nicholas and Alexandra" is elevated by an intelligent script laced with fine dialogue. Transposing history onto the screen is never an easy task, but the story of the last years of the Romanov Dynasty is well served by Goldman. He skillfully telescopes events, while still remaining basically true to historic fact. One way or another, all films dealing with history compromise fact for drama. The best of them achieve a balance between the two. Those pedants who quibble over this fact of life, please refer to the historical plays of Shakespeare for it's validation.

Among the film's many pleasures is the high level of acting by an impressive cast. Michael Jayston and Janet Suzman are simply magnificent in the lead roles. It was an uncanny and bold choice using two unknowns to star in a film of this scope, and they have no problems carrying the three hour film. Both create complex, three-dimensional characters, deeply flawed, yet appealing, sympathetic and infuriating. it is the film's unwillingness to portray them as simply victims that gives it tragic grandeur. A special note must be made of Tom Baker's performance as Rasputin. Too often in previous movies film-makers have exploited the sensational events of the man's life and nothing more. This film actually had the courage to downplay those lurid elements, striving instead for complexity of character. Here we have a tortured individual, a charlatan and a monk, lascivious yet craving spiritual redemption. The Imperial Children are also sensitively depicted, with a standout performance by Roderic Noble as the hemophiliac only son, Alexis. The internal angst he brings to the part in his later scenes is impressive. Franklin J. Schaffner's able direction keeps the film moving along, and at no time is there any danger of the film losing focus on the two leads. This was no mean feat considering the powerhouse supporting cast that included, Laurence Olivier, Michael Redgrave, Harry Andrews, Irene Worth, Jack Hawkins, Ian Holm, Michael Bryant, Brian Cox, Eric Porter, Timothy West, Peter McEnery, Julian Glover, Roy Dotrice, Maurice Denham, Alan Webb, Guy Rolfe, Steven Berkof and John Wood, all of whom do memorable turns.

In the first half of the movie, the filmmakers vividly bring to life the isolated fairy-tale world the Imperial Family inhabited. The beautiful palaces, and villas provide a striking contrast to the shabby, squalid prison quarters of the film's second half, which deals largely with the Romanov's exile and imprisonment in Siberia. The murder of the Royal Family in the basement of the Ipatiev house, the so called "House of Special Purpose" is one of the most strikingly directed scenes in the film. The brutal suddenness with which it is depicted packs quite a wallop. Filmed in Panavision, the film is gorgeous to look at. John Box's recreation of Imperial Russia at the turn of the century truly deserved it's Academy Award for Best Production Design, as did Yvonne Blake for Best Costume Design. Freddie Young's stunning cinematography and Richard Rodney Bennett's haunting music score were also nominated, though they both lost to other films. Finally it is a beautifully edited film, a marvelous example of invisible editing used to create a subtle, but powerful sense of irony. A superb film that deals intelligently with the problems inherent in transposing history onto film.

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.

I watched this movie for the first time this weekend (on DVD). It's been troubling me ever since because I still don't know how I feel about the last Czar: flawed man trapped by circumstance or bumbling autocrat responsible for countless deaths, including his own family's??? The movie doesn't portray the last Romanovs as absolute heroes or absolute villains. And this, my friends, is the sign of a well-crafted historical epic!! I've read Robert K. Massie's book; while it is overwhelmingly historically detailed, I think some of the humanity of the characters is lost. That is where this movie excels: it reminds us that Nicholas, Alexandra, Lenin, Rasputin, etc. were flesh-and-blood and not mere historical paper-dolls. I'm not going to comment on the individual actors because this movie is great because of the sum of its parts. The bottom line: I'm still haunted by this movie and I'm deeply affected by the tragedy of errors which affected so many people during this time. I've read many books on the Russian Revolution, but I've never felt the human tragedy as much as when I watched this movie. It may not be the most conventional movie, but it's worth spending the time to get through it.