Tatiana in "Nicholas and Alexandra"

[helenazar]

What I am saying is that apparently it was Prince Vasili who walked out on the film, but somehow it became Robert Massie who did - in retelling of the story. In retelling things got distorted as it often happens, ""the broken telephone" syndrome. No need to get defensive, I am not questioning your Prince Vasili story, just making a point.

[dmitri]

I wonder what was offensive about Alexandra in Nicholas and Alexandra? It painted a pretty rosy picture of the couple.

[Alixz]

Alexandra was actually quite bitchy in the movie.  And it did show her to be aloof and indifferent to those around her who were not part of NAOTMAA.

Remember how Nicholas dropped to his knees in front of her and sobbed after he abdicated?  I know that she was portrayed as crying as well, but it made Nicholas look like a wimp expecting his harridan of a wife to scold him like he was an errant child.

And back to Tatiana, this thread has been going on for a long time and I know that I have said this before, but here goes again.  ;-)

When making a movie where time is short and the story is long and complicated, many things have to be done for cinematic effect and to let those in the audience who have not yet (and maybe never will) read the book know something of the back story.

The issue of Tatiana "showing" herself to the guard was a cinematic effect to let the audience know that OTMA were a sheltered group and that (since we all knew by then that they were going to their deaths) they had never had a normal life and now never would have one.

We here on the AP might take exception to using a scene like that to "explain" something that couldn't be explained in words in a two hour film, but it probably got people in the audience thinking and, who knows, it may have gotten some to actually go get the book and read it!

I saw the film twice in theaters at the time.  Once I went with a good friend of mine who knew nothing about the Romanovs.  She spent the whole movie asking me to explain what was happening.  Her biggest point of confusion was why the photos of Kaiser Wilhelm and King George and Nicholas II came up in still shots after the still shot of Franz Ferdinand being assassinated.  I explained that was the cinematic way of letting the audience know who the protagonists of the war were. (In fact she asked me not just why the photos were there, but who the photos were of.

Film makers have to manage a lot of information and condense it all into a small time slot and still get almost everyone in the theater to "get the picture". 

I don't believe that they were insulting Tatiana or anyone else for that matter.  They were just trying their best to show as much as they could and get the back story in as well.

[azrael7171918]

 
The film was released in the early 70s. I remember reading an article at the time that mentioned the scene and writer saying it was put in  just to go with the times. The early 70s late 60s was when he rating system came about because of questionable material.

The scene was put in to make it slightly suggestive. The screenwriter had the bedroom scene in "Anastasia Mystery of Anna" probably for the same reason.

There was no historical reason it probably just seemed like a good idea at the time.

In hindsight it is interesting that they choose Tatiana. It was probably not because of the girl she was portraying but for the actress herself. It has come out in a bio of Sam Spiegel that he had something going on with Lynne Frederick at the time. Which would also explain why if you look at the girls she is the most prominent one.

Azrael

[dmitri]

You know the fact remains we do not know all that much about how any of OTMA behaved inside the Ipatiev House. All we know is that they entered and some things about the rooms they occuppied, the types of meals they ate, some of the books they read and some times of walks, but not a great deal. We know more about their deaths than what any of the girls did from hour to hour, day in day out. What is known is it must have been quite disturbing for them. Certainly their toileting was hardly private. 

[NAOTMAA Fan]

And back to Tatiana, this thread has been going on for a long time and I know that I have said this before, but here goes again.  ;-)

When making a movie where time is short and the story is long and complicated, many things have to be done for cinematic effect and to let those in the audience who have not yet (and maybe never will) read the book know something of the back story.

The issue of Tatiana "showing" herself to the guard was a cinematic effect to let the audience know that OTMA were a sheltered group and that (since we all knew by then that they were going to their deaths) they had never had a normal life and now never would have one.

We here on the AP might take exception to using a scene like that to "explain" something that couldn't be explained in words in a two hour film, but it probably got people in the audience thinking and, who knows, it may have gotten some to actually go get the book and read it!

Film makers have to manage a lot of information and condense it all into a small time slot and still get almost everyone in the theater to "get the picture". 

I don't believe that they were insulting Tatiana or anyone else for that matter.  They were just trying their best to show as much as they could and get the back story in as well.

Wow Alixz I never looked at that way!! Thank you for posting that and opening my eyes wider on other possibilities!!!

I saw the film twice in theaters at the time.  Once I went with a good friend of mine who knew nothing about the Romanovs.  She spent the whole movie asking me to explain what was happening.  Her biggest point of confusion was why the photos of Kaiser Wilhelm and King George and Nicholas II came up in still shots after the still shot of Franz Ferdinand being assassinated.  I explained that was the cinematic way of letting the audience know who the protagonists of the war were. (In fact she asked me not just why the photos were there, but who the photos were of.

What is this about still photos after Franz Ferdinand being shot, and a still shot of the assassination?? In the movie I saw, it's actual actors depicting Franz Ferdinand and Sophie being shot. Was there a slightly different version shown in theaters in the 70's than the one on DVD today??

[Alixz]

I haven't seen it in along time, but didn't the assassination of FF and Sophie go to black and white just before the photos of the three royals came up?

And then with Nicholas II shown last, he goes to color again and is Michael Jayston?

As I said it was a long time ago.  :-(

[NAOTMAA Fan]

Oh no worries Alixz, something like that does happen, but not quite. FF's assassination is by actors and then later on NAOTMAA are on the balcony of the "Winter Palace" and waving and it shows b&w photos of Kaiser Wilhelm, French President Poincaré, Emperor Franz Joseph, and King George V and then back to Micheal Jayston and Janet Suzman. I know the feeling of trying to remember films from a long time ago (well at least 10 years at most), and details get distorted. Thanks for replying!

[LisaDavidson]

What I am saying is that apparently it was Prince Vasili who walked out on the film, but somehow it became Robert Massie who did - in retelling of the story. In retelling things got distorted as it often happens, ""the broken telephone" syndrome. No need to get defensive, I am not questioning your Prince Vasili story, just making a point.

And I am sorry if my reply sounded defensive to you. Since there were so many verbal recollections involved, I was not sure what you meant, so I asked you.

Even then, the explanations are slightly different (only a tiny bit different actually). I think it likely that Vasili was most offended by the portrayal of Alix, but this is only my opinion.

[dmitri]

I guess the answer could be that he did not have a complete picture of his Aunt or he didn't feel the betrayal was close enough or perhaps too close .. who will know as he is gone himself now. Certainly I think Janet Suzman tried to make something of the part and was not all that bad. The film was quite sympathetic to both Nicholas and Alexandra.

[RealAnastasia]

Sorry, but I do not see the film sympathetic at all. If you read "Nicholas and Alexandra", by Robert K. Massie, you'll find the movie is totally different from that. I can't quote over and over what it was already discussed in a lot of threads before this one, but I think this movie is not only inaccurate most of the time, but also suppressed a lot of IMPORTANT characters from it. The girls are wallpapers all the movie along, and if you read Massie's book, you'll notice that he wanted the Imperial Family in a whole to be known by his readers. Most of people was not aware of the girls personnalities before his book, and we must aknowledge him for such accomplishment. The movie is the opposite to that. The girls had no personnality in it, and you may mistook one for each other, excepting Anastasia. The first time I saw it, I mistook Maria by Tatiana and vice-versa. That's awful. And the scene where Tatiana showed herself semi-naked to the guards is disgusting. Maybe I'm old fashioned. But for me is unbearable to see the memoir of a poor murdered girl who was so well behaved and religious slandered in such a way.

Even for the sake of an "artistic effect" they shouldn't do that. Especially with Tatiana who was righteous personnified. Would you even like that someone should portray your mother, sister or daughter in such a way?

RealAnastasia.

[dmitri]

I guess it is necessary to understand that the film was entitled "Nicholas and Alexandra" and not "OTMA". As for the scene with Tatiana perhaps it was unnecessary. There is no way of knowing what happened in the Ipatiev House each day to the girls. It is written that they had absolutely no privacy when going to the toilet. Who knows how they would have reacted? Whatever one thinks of the film it is the best on offer about Nicholas and Alexandra at present that spans the period. Perhaps it is time for another although given the same length of time it would be difficult to devote much time to OTMA as they were really not so important in the scheme of things. 

[Alixz]

I guess that is truly the point.  To those of us who post here, every detail is important.  To the world in general the deaths and lives of the Romanovs don't merit a second thought.

And we don't know what happened on a day to day basis in Yekaterinburg or Tobolsk for that matter.

And OTMA really were "wallpaper" in the general scheme of things.  Not much of what they did is even recorded let alone remembered.  The grand duchesses took a back seat to Alexei.  They didn't mind and that was their job.  That and dancing attendance on their mother.

I agree that we are lucky that a movie was made at all.  And the movie only covered the life time of Alexei.  From his birth to his death with the others in Yekaterinburg.

I mentioned that my friend didn't even know who the black and white pictures were of!  And she graduated 6th in our class from high school and 10th in her class from college. She was (and still is) a bright and well informed woman, but Russian and European history is just not her thing. That is why she asked me to go with her to see the movie, she knew that I could interpret and explain the scenes and the action that she didn't understand.

Just think how many others were there who had no one to explain it to them.  I'm sure that if some of us who post here couldn't figure out which grand duchess was which, then most of the general public didn't know that it Tatiana who was represented in that scene.

No harm no foul.  And unless someone with the kind of interest that we have in the film buys it on DVD, many who saw it almost 30 years ago probably don't recall much of it at all.  I should ask my friend, I'll bet she might even remember that we went to see it together, let alone if someone was not correctly portrayed. 

Of course JMHO   ;-)

[dmitri]

well just proof that european history should take priority as it is what came before american history and is interlinked .. can't be separated

[Alixz]

dmitri

I don't understand your post.  I don't think that my friend ever thought that European History was unimportant, just not tops on her list of things to follow closely.  Just like my weakness is spelling and I couldn't post anywhere without my trusty spell checker.

And American history begins with European history.  Every American History class begins with the European explorers and the colonists and the detrimental effect that Europeans had on the Native Americans.  Europeans brought diseases which killed many Native Americans who had no natural immunity.  They took land which was not theirs to take.  The kings and queens of Europe and the pope in Rome divided up land that they had no right to divide up and gave it away to anyone whom they wanted to reward.  All of this without regard for the people who already lived in the Americas and who already lived on the land.

Any country's educational system has a limited time to impart as much information to its children as it can.  Just as film makers have a limited time to tell a story and get all the pertinent information in as well as getting in as much of the back story as they can.

Every student in every country decides what area of their education interests them the most and they proceed to follow that area more closely than the other areas that they were exposed to.

I happen to study the time period from 1860 to 1917.  I try to be as inclusive as I can and study the intertwining of all of the countries and what was going on in them during that time period.

But if were a student, say, of Medieval history, I might not know Alexander II from Alexander III or George V from Nicholas II.  ;-)

But the European time period that we discuss here did not come before American history.  It happened directly along side of and intertwined with American history.  And these histories are still linked today.

There is no reason for a priority of study.  Each person determines his/her own priority based on his/her own interests.  That is how we gain the perspective of our "experts".