I'm talking about the backlash from many historians about the accuracy of Anastasia; I believe Bob described it as someone making a film which "Anne Frank moves to Orlando and opens a crocodile farm with a guy named Mort."? (A little joking prod, of course, I'm not attempting to cause an argument. Actually the image of Anne Frank's crocodile farm is amusing :p)
I've seen many posts on here criticising the accuracy of the film but is it all necessary? I understand why, of course, but is it fair that grown adults, who research the Romanovs to learn about the family, should criticise a children's film? Made for children
I would have taken my child to see this movie when it came out and wouldn't have to worry about the violence and blood. But if they had kept it historical accurate, and opened the movie with their execution, I would have taken my child out of that cinema as quick as I could.
Russia, or majority of Russians, who know their brutal history didn't care that it wasn't historically accurate;Gemini Films, the Russian distributor of Anastasia, stressed the fact that the story was "not history", but rather "a fairy tale set against the background of real Russian events" in the film's Russian marketing campaign so that its Russian audience would not view Anastasia "as a historical film". As a result, many Russians praised the film for its art and storytelling and saw it as "not so much a piece of history but another Western import to be consumed and enjoyed."
But historians from the West were not happy about it at all, and it contributed to the film's rating, but regardless it was a massive box office success.
Should we adults keep criticising this film for romancing Anastasia's story? How many of us first discovered the history of the Romanovs because
of this film?
We know the real story of Anastasia; that she, nor Olga, Tatiana, Maria, or Alexei survived that night in July. But the impostors and the movies, TV shows and even little game cameos all make up her story that continues, even if it's not as accurate as we want it to be at least
they got OTM's 1913 hairstyles correct.
But I honestly don't see the point in the hatred for the entire movie just because we didn't get to see their deaths, or the Bolsheviks, or even Olga and Xenia. I was kind of expecting a mention of one of them to be quite honest.
I see posts attacking the characters, the songs and even the plot of a film meant for a child which is unnecessary since it's a good film with or without the historical accuracy. And even then the animators had at least researched, much more than many documentaries about them to be honest; Tatiana being the tallest with her bobbed haircut, Olga with her hair pinned up, Maria with her noticeable long hair, Alexei's limp symbolising his haemophilia and the drawing Anastasia made in real life (meant for Nicholas) implemented into the film (switched so it was meant for Maria).
So can future posts about Anastasia or even mentioning the posts remember that you need to at least have a valid point not to like the film but don't diss it for the lack of accuracy?