As I've probably mentioned in previous messages

, for me the 1971 film was the gateway to everything else. So, I admit to having a sentimental attachment! But I do think the people working on the film did their very best, considering the need to make it theatrically viable in terms of length, having to shoot elsewhere than Russia, etc.
Taking the film apart piece by piece . . . yes, there are things to dispute. Having Stolypin alive in 1913 is perhaps the most obvious "what the heck?!" moment, for anyone who is aware of dates. I also used to dispute the implication that Alexei was born during a wintery time. But, after viewing the film not so long ago, it seems a jump forward in time of at least two or three months is implied, from Alexei's birth to the snow scenes. (Plus, I remember being in Moscow in August and seeing people lining up at a store to buy fur hats!) So, that scene depicting N & A waving goodbye to OTMA as they go out to a party (which I recall was a b-day celebration for the Dowager Empress; anyone have her b-day date?) was meant to indicate a "fast forward" situation.
A number of scenes which did not show up in most of the theatrical versions did make it to at least a few of the televised airings and are part of the current DVD. I have a few problems with some of them, but I understand, I think, what the screenwriters were aiming at. When you've got "x" number of minutes to convey a number of ideas, situations are compressed, elaborated, combined, and sometimes, yes, even created. In a film representing a particular historical period, however, such license can be disturbing to those who are well-read in that area.
The scene that seems to have disburbed the most people--and I myself admit to being rather disarmed by it!--is the one of the girls in captivity being spied on by a soldier, and then Tatiana steps forward and briefly reveals herself to him. When I saw that scene my immediate reaction was, "The screenwriter picked the wronnnnng daughter!" And I think most of us who have read up on OTMA would say that Marie would have been the most likely to do such a thing . . . tho' I'm not saying any of the girls would have done so! But, in writing that scene, the screenwriter did convey that (1) the situation could be tense between the soldiers and OTMA and (2) the girls suffered from, among other things, not being able to explore the very natural feelings that they surely must have felt. (Read Anne Frank's diary--the unexpurgated version which includes info her father cut from the original published version--and you'll find she writes of sexual yearnings.)
The scene, also during their captivity, in which Alexei and Nicholas have a rather contentious discussion? Well, we know that during that period Nicholas began to draw a few conclusions about mistakes he had made, and we also know that he was trying as much as possible to understand and get along with his captors, even as Alexandra remained aloof and rather haughty. Gilliard says that Alexei took the news of his father's abdication in a thoughtful manner, but I wouldn't doubt that later, with plenty of time to think about things and question--and isn't that what adolescents do?--Alexei might have challenged even his beloved Papa. At any rate, the scene did give the screenwriter an opportunity to show that Nicholas had gained some perspective.
Another scene which was usually chopped out of the commercial version shows Alexei having a nighmare and the entire family joining him, while Nicholas calmly explains that yes, the Archduke was assassinated, but all over Europe royal children are sleeping peacefully in their beds. (My own paraphrase, of course!) I very much like this scene because it illustrates (1) the Tsar's charm and parenting skills, and (2) the strong possibility that Nicholas really did believe that he and his family were safe. (Despite the fact that several of his relatives had fallen victim to terrorism, I would imagine that Nicholas--for self-preservation--could be in denial, just as much as any of us!)
Anyway, this is not meant to be a scene-by-scene dissection of the film, but more of an appreciation for what led so many of us to the study of the last Tsar, as well as a "caveat" that it
is a dramatization, and not a documentary, and therefore may sometimes take artistic license.
