Intrigues impériales

For all us costume drama lovers, this one really fits the bill: splendiferous castles, expensive costumes, madness and mayhem!!! When Peter squshes the rat (thankfully off-camera) you know another movie milestone has been passed: how to best express sadism without showing blood. By the time the poor maniac is murdered, you are very thankful to whomever.

One certainly gets a strange look at the German-born Catherine the Great from the nymphomaniacal pictures one has read elsewhere. She is quite righteous, but one does wonder at the truth of her standing down the Russian Army during one of the palace revolts. I would think from all these historical monarchy movies that the life of a ruler is NOT a happy one....see "Anne Boleyn", "Elisabeth and Essex", "Mary, Queen of Scots" and "Richard III" for a few examples.

It is no wonder that this movie captures top dollar on the auctions. I had to wait out the big money spenders at least 11 times to get it at my price ($17.) Really glad I did. This will be well worth my new big screen TV and will get a re-screening along with "Nicholas and Alexandria". Pick up the old 1934 Douglas Fairbanks movie of "Catherine the Great" for comparison. Then head for the Brittanica for perhaps a little closer version of the truth.,,although this hits it pretty closely.

Young Catherine is superb. It may not be totally 100% accurate but it is sweeping and powerful drama. The cast are superb and it is fantastic to see that it was actually filmed in real settings in Russia. It is wonderful to see the magnificent Catherine Palace at Tsarskoe Selo used. There are many wonderful actors in this drama. I think my favourite must be Vanessa Redgrave as the Empress Elizabeth. She is superb. Julia Ormond is also wonderful in the lead role. At the end of the film I wanted to see her continue in the role with more of Catherine II. Mark Frankel is such a dashing Gregory Orlov. It is so sad that he was killed in an accident so young. He had much to give as a performer. Reece Dinsdale is suitably made as the Grand Duke Peter while Maximilian Schell is fantastic as King Frederick the Great of Prussia. I particularly liked Marthe Keller as Catherine's mother Johanna. She is a wonderful actress. Anna Kanakis and Franco Nero are deliciously evil as Count and Countess Voronstov and Christopher Plummer is superb as the British Ambassador. Katharine Schlesinger is grotesquely wonderful as the whorish crippled mistress of Grand Duke Peter. Harmut Becker as Catherine's father and Laurie Holden as Princess Dashkova are also very good. John Shrapnel is also excellent as the Russian Orthodox Archimandrite Todorsky. All in all if you like sweeping romantic drama with lots of interesting characters, Young Catherine is well worth seeing. I know I enjoyed it.

This film is rare in that it tries, and almost succeeds, in giving an accurate impression of Russian history. There are only three points on which it flounders, and unfortunately, the second one of them, at the end of the film, is quite unforgivable. The acting is excellent. Christopher Plummer is a true delight as a sardonic and kindly old diplomat, while Vannesa Redgrave is truly stunning as the mercurial and autocratic Empress Elizabeth. Julia Ormond is good, skillful and inspired in playing an intelligent young woman, who possesses a grand will and a superb mind which will not allow her to stay in the background. It is easy to see that the roles were studied well, and that the memoirs of Catherine the Great played a large part in the planning of the film. The shooting of the film was done, thankfully, on location, for a large part in the Catherine Palace at Pushkin (formerly Tsarskoe Selo). The costumes (with the exception of the black fox winter coats), were well studied and planned. All in all, this film is done well, intelligently, and it almost manages to avoid the fatal flaw of romantic hollywoodism. Almost, but not quite. Here we come to the flaws of the film. The first historical error is, I admit, a very small one. The winter coats worn in the film are made of black fox. Unfortunately, this animal was bred for the fur only in the nineteenth century, long after Catherine's death. Had bearskin coats been used, or sable, or ordinary red fox, the general effect would have been a bit smoother. The second flaw is the condensation of the film into a reasonable time period. True, I realize that this was unavoidable. But the fact remain, Catherine was married to Peter III for no less than seventeen years, and was a mature woman in her thirties when she planned her palace coup against her (very well played here) incompetent and sickening husband. Truth to tell, though, after reading her memoirs one begins to wonder why she did not poison him after the first six months. Heaven knows, any normal woman would have. And finally, the third and worst flaw of the film. Unfortunately, here, the romantic notions of the movie industry took over from historical accuracy and common sense. The scene of Peter III's death at the hands of his guards and Alexej Orlov (not Grigorij), was well described in the documents of Catherine's time. Allowing, in the script, for the "romantic" scene in which Grigorij Orlov strangles Peter, and then tells Catherine of it in bed is the largest mistake of the film. It neglects historical fact on a fairly major point in favor of cheap theatrical effect. To sum up: this is a beautifully and accurately filmed movie, with excellent acting, an intelligent (and almost accurate!) plot, and a good sense of history (something you will not see in the 1930's film). It is worth watching, but if you are a historian, or even a person interested in Russian history, try not to take it too personally.

I absolutely love this film! Having seen it for the first time as a pre-teen Russophile, I became enamored with the scenery, costumes, and history of imperial Russia. I got to see these things and places for real during college, and it was literally the most thrilling experience! The "empress' own sleigh" is in the Kremlin museum, as is Catherine's coronation gown, and some of Peter III's suits--he was such a tiny little man!

I must admit, however, a great disappointment when I finally, just last week, read Carolly Erikson's well-researched biography of Catherine, and found many inaccuracies in the film. For one, Catherine actually had several children, not just Paul. It does simplify the story, however, to keep him as an only child (like how in Gone With The Wind, Scarlett's children by her first two husbands are completely left out of the film). The most frustrating inaccuracy, however, was that she really did not even meet Orlov til she was nearly 30 years old, and had already had several lovers.

The love story in the film is much more screen-worthy, however, so I can forgive their decision, it was just saddening to me to have my understanding of this amazing woman altered after so many years. The film's portrayal of the struggles of Catherine's early life is true-to-life in its essence, however, as it introduces a modern audience to this bold, brave, and incredibly intelligent historical figure.

It's 1744 in a small German principality. Catherine (Julia Ormond) is selected by Prussian Frederick the Great (Maximilian Schell) and brought to St. Petersberg to marry Peter, heir to the Russian throne. The empire is ruled by his aunt Empress Elizabeth (Vanessa Redgrave). Peter is a failure in everything and Catherine must fight for her place. She is befriended by Sir Charles (Christopher Plummer) but few others. She maneuvers to take the throne and the empire.

In 1744, Catherine would have been 15. Julia Ormond was about 10 years older than that. It would have been more compelling to have a teen trying to deal with the political intrigue. The role does span a long time so it's a tough casting proposition. She was 33 when she took the throne. Ormond was relatively new and did a very nice job. The production is pretty high for a TV mini-series. The cast is filled with great veterans. It is better than most TV movies. As for accuracy, don't ask me. I'm no historian.