Even before I read Massie's book, I saw the film, "Nicholas and Alexandra," and was hooked. Recently I purchased a DVD edition and watched with a more critical eye. As I realized after my research began to take hold, the film has a few inaccuracies--nothing really awful--but, in my opinion, its only flaw is that the story is so huge, it's difficult to tell it within such a short time span. Location shooting in Russia was not permitted, as I understand, but I think the Spanish backgrounds are good . . . tho' after visiting the real Livadia, how I wish they had been allowed to film at that site in particular! I did feel the script was wonderful, given how much needed to be compressed, and especially since three stories were being juggled--the Romanovs, the "common man" (the same man seen at a number of situations, including Bloody Sunday), and the revolutionary leaders themselves. For me, Janet Suzman and Michael Jayston are the definitive Alexandra and Nicholas. However, I will admit that the "Fall of Eagles" program--with Stephen Kay, I believe, as Nicholas--was very well done, and I hope it will be rereleased. The HBO program was impressive--told more from the Rasputin viewpoint, of course--but although all were excellent, I still prefer Suzman and Jayston. (And I think more should be said re: Jayston's performance; some of the scenes deleted from the theatrical cut are in the DVD, and he is wonderful in his talk to Alexei during their imprisonment.) Ethel Barrymore, I believe, even met the Empress. The film itself is a mishmash--a mess, in fact!--because it was thrown together so quickly, and the focus was on the three Barrymores. But still, it is a curiousity that Romanov fans will enjoy. "Russian Ark" is visually a feast. Forget about storyline, and put aside the fact that we don't see "our" Romanovs for too long . . . just enjoy the rare treat of seeing the Winter Palace!
