Anastasia Cartoon circa 1995

[azrael7171918]

[


 Was such a fuss made over some of the scenes in N&A and I think we all know what they are?

This was animated not live action. Live action dramas made from historical events have no right to sully the reputation of a young woman murdered when she was 21.

I was referring to the scene in Nicholas & Alexandra towards the end of the film with Tatiana.

An Audience not familiar with the true situation might take that as truth.

Jo

[Romanov_fan]

Well, many films like those mentioned make those who watch them get the wrong idea. That will continue, and there is most likely not one historical film that does not have some such untruth in it. As for legend, I think there is much to be known about Pocahontas if you read the relevant books. I am not interested in US history, but I am interested in early US history ( The Salem Witch Trials(my ancestors were involved in that), Puritans, Jamestown, but nothing after the Revolutionary War, nothing after there is no connection to England.Anastasia was not a legend, and there is no excuse to be inaccurate about her life. But hopefully movies loosely based on history can draw people deeper into real history.

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

The fact that Anastasia herself was not a legend is true; she was a real person, who lived and breathed like the rest of us, and deserves to have that memory of who she was respected.

However, what the cartoon depicts is not the life story of the 'real' Anastasia; it depicts the 'legend of Anastasia'- the stories and myths about the survivor claimants and conspiracy theories that have sprung up after her death.  The cartoon is about the whole nature of a possible survival, of an 'alternate ending' to the story, if you like.  This film is not about the real Anastasia because the real Anastasia had no part in these myths that sprung up after her death.  If this film is about anyone, it's about the character Ingrid Bergman plays in the live action 'Anastasia' film of, I believe, 1956.

This is why I can't take offence at the film.  It's not about the truth, and it's not based in fact.  It's a cartoon about the legend of Anastasia, not the real Anastasia.  Therefore, there's nothing to get offended about; it's not depicting the person Anastasia was anyway.

Rachel
xx

[Romanov_fan]

Thanks for your viewpoint. I think it does depict the legend of Anastasia, as most movies about history tend to be on the legend side more than not.  I agree there is a great deal of legend about Anastasia, that the young woman herself would most likely have found amusing. She would not have understood it. The legend really seems to center around Anna Anderson, though. This movie doesn't center around Anna Anderson, although it has bits of her story, in the survival part. I understand those who do take offense at this, and I also understand those who think it is merely an animated film. I take a middle road myself...

[Ortino]

The fact that Anastasia herself was not a legend is true; she was a real person, who lived and breathed like the rest of us, and deserves to have that memory of who she was respected.

However, what the cartoon depicts is not the life story of the 'real' Anastasia; it depicts the 'legend of Anastasia'- the stories and myths about the survivor claimants and conspiracy theories that have sprung up after her death.  The cartoon is about the whole nature of a possible survival, of an 'alternate ending' to the story, if you like.  This film is not about the real Anastasia because the real Anastasia had no part in these myths that sprung up after her death.  If this film is about anyone, it's about the character Ingrid Bergman plays in the live action 'Anastasia' film of, I believe, 1956.

This is why I can't take offence at the film.  It's not about the truth, and it's not based in fact.  It's a cartoon about the legend of Anastasia, not the real Anastasia.  Therefore, there's nothing to get offended about; it's not depicting the person Anastasia was anyway.

Rachel
xx

THANK YOU! FINALLY someone has mentioned the connection with the Ingrid Bergman movie. It's pretty much the exact same story, yet no one seems offended by that one.  Someone from the opposing side care to explain the differences between them?

[LisaDavidson]

The fact that Anastasia herself was not a legend is true; she was a real person, who lived and breathed like the rest of us, and deserves to have that memory of who she was respected.

However, what the cartoon depicts is not the life story of the 'real' Anastasia; it depicts the 'legend of Anastasia'- the stories and myths about the survivor claimants and conspiracy theories that have sprung up after her death.  The cartoon is about the whole nature of a possible survival, of an 'alternate ending' to the story, if you like.  This film is not about the real Anastasia because the real Anastasia had no part in these myths that sprung up after her death.  If this film is about anyone, it's about the character Ingrid Bergman plays in the live action 'Anastasia' film of, I believe, 1956.

This is why I can't take offence at the film.  It's not about the truth, and it's not based in fact.  It's a cartoon about the legend of Anastasia, not the real Anastasia.  Therefore, there's nothing to get offended about; it's not depicting the person Anastasia was anyway.

Rachel
xx

THANK YOU! FINALLY someone has mentioned the connection with the Ingrid Bergman movie. It's pretty much the exact same story, yet no one seems offended by that one.  Someone from the opposing side care to explain the differences between them?

I have, in fact, pointed out the numerous differences between the two films many times. I'll start a list. In a nutshell, the Bergman film is fairly true to what actually happened historically with one notable exception and does not portray the claimant as definitely being Anastasia. The animated film on the other hand:

1. Says the claimant was definitely Anastasia. There is no ambiguity. For the record, Anastasia's family found this extremely offensive as did I.. The Bergaman film leaves this issue open.
2. Completely ignores history except when a historical person is inserted into the story. The Bergman film, on the other hand, incorrectly portrays the Dowager Empress as meeting the claimant. In case anyone doubts about the power of film to misinform, there are still many people who believe they met because the film shows this. The film was made almost 50 years ago, and the misinformation persists.
3. Anastasia is never imprisoned, never faces a firing squad, never sees her family murdered in front of her eyes. This does not offend you? May I please ask, for the record, what does offend you? The Bergman film has the IF being murdered in Ekaterinburg as they actually were.
4.  Makes Rasputin an outright villan instead of the complex character he actually was. He did do some good, you know. Most of the damage that was done to the dynasty because of him happened because no one understood about Alexis' hemophelia and his power to arrest the symptoms.

Should I go on? The Bergman film is not offensive because it does not inaccurately present history except for the Dowager Empress meeting. It does not mix fact and fantasy irresponsibly. None of Anastasia's surviving family were offended by the Bergman film. Nearly all were offended by the animated film.

[Elisabeth]

I agree with all your points, Lisa. I watched Once Upon a December once and thought it was an exercise in monumentally bad taste, for all the reasons you cite and also because admittedly I find most cartoons to be in bad taste. That said, I can understand why most children would like it, since it is colorful and has all the elements of a fairy tale. 

The whole idea of doing a children's cartoon about Anastasia was misconceived, however, because the subject matter simply isn't suitable for the under-10s. You can't show a family being murdered unless you want to traumatize the children in your audience for the rest of their lives. So by choosing this subject for their movie, the filmmakers were virtually forced to rewrite history. As far as I'm concerned the whole production was a mistake from beginning to end and should never have been allowed to get past the planning stage.

I always wonder how parents respond when their children, after watching this film, ask them about the real Anastasia. What do you say? Uh, read more about it and find out that she was murdered with her entire family at the age of seventeen?

[Romanov_fan]

I do agree that there are differences between the animated movie, and the Bergman movie. I have watched both, and I think that the Bergman one is more about the story of Anna Anderson, or imposters than it is the story of Anastasia.I did not care for it, but it is more removed from the historical reality of the real Anastasia, being more about Anna Anderson,etc. Was not that movie inspired by her claim, I believe? As for the animated movie, all children will find their own answers. Either they will just take it as a movie and not being interested further, or they will go further, and be interested in history(hopefully). History is realiity, only that of the past. Reality sadly is often tragic, and I think kids have different levels when they find that out. Some can understand it young, and then people think them abnormal for being able to understand. Some can't understand it until later, and that is perhaps regarded as more normal. All kids have different maturity levels, but we cannot always shield children from reality, nor should we.

[LisaDavidson]

I agree with all your points, Lisa. I watched Once Upon a December once and thought it was an exercise in monumentally bad taste, for all the reasons you cite and also because admittedly I find most cartoons to be in bad taste. That said, I can understand why most children would like it, since it is colorful and has all the elements of a fairy tale. 

The whole idea of doing a children's cartoon about Anastasia was misconceived, however, because the subject matter simply isn't suitable for the under-10s. You can't show a family being murdered unless you want to traumatize the children in your audience for the rest of their lives. So by choosing this subject for their movie, the filmmakers were virtually forced to rewrite history. As far as I'm concerned the whole production was a mistake from beginning to end and should never have been allowed to get past the planning stage.

I always wonder how parents respond when their children, after watching this film, ask them about the real Anastasia. What do you say? Uh, read more about it and find out that she was murdered with her entire family at the age of seventeen?

All I can tell you is that after Fox stole Bob's and my work for their "official" site, my then 4 year old daughter still wanted to go to see "that" movie. After the film, she asked me what happened, and I told her that some very strange grown ups made up the story they told in the movie and that the real Anastasia was a very brave girl who was killed with her family by very bad people. That was about enough info for her at 4. She wanted to know if the strange people were the ones who stole my writing, and I told her yes. She had no trouble at all understanding this, which tells me alot about her and also the world in which we live.

[Love4Royalty]

There are other animated movies about Anastasia.  There is one that's almost the same as FOX's but she has musical instruments that are actually her siblings.  I don't know what to say about that one.

[Elisabeth]

I agree with all your points, Lisa. I watched Once Upon a December once and thought it was an exercise in monumentally bad taste, for all the reasons you cite and also because admittedly I find most cartoons to be in bad taste. That said, I can understand why most children would like it, since it is colorful and has all the elements of a fairy tale. 

The whole idea of doing a children's cartoon about Anastasia was misconceived, however, because the subject matter simply isn't suitable for the under-10s. You can't show a family being murdered unless you want to traumatize the children in your audience for the rest of their lives. So by choosing this subject for their movie, the filmmakers were virtually forced to rewrite history. As far as I'm concerned the whole production was a mistake from beginning to end and should never have been allowed to get past the planning stage.

I always wonder how parents respond when their children, after watching this film, ask them about the real Anastasia. What do you say? Uh, read more about it and find out that she was murdered with her entire family at the age of seventeen?

All I can tell you is that after Fox stole Bob's and my work for their "official" site, my then 4 year old daughter still wanted to go to see "that" movie. After the film, she asked me what happened, and I told her that some very strange grown ups made up the story they told in the movie and that the real Anastasia was a very brave girl who was killed with her family by very bad people. That was about enough info for her at 4. She wanted to know if the strange people were the ones who stole my writing, and I told her yes. She had no trouble at all understanding this, which tells me alot about her and also the world in which we live.

Oh, what can I say! This is exactly why every nerve in my body objected so strongly to this movie. It is indeed hard to imagine what personal and moral dilemmas these Hollywood mercenaries put you through.

[Romanov_fan]

I remember the musical instruments one. I have seen that, actually I saw it before I saw the Anastasia animated movie. I think it is absurd, but it made me feel the real tragedy of the deaths of the Romanovs. I saw that when I was eleven, although I never liked it. That is really disrespectful, but also just plain silly.

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

'Personal and moral dilemmas'? Please.  This is an animated cartoon we're talking about here.  Some people need to get some perspective. 

Let's compare Anastasia with a more recent film, World Trade Center.

I find World Trade Center insensitive and I refused to watch it because I think glamourising the September 11th attacks just five years after it happened is disgusting and wrong.  Thousands of people died, and Hollywood can't wait to make a film about it.  Now that gets my goat.

Fox made a fun film about the legendary stories surrounding the possible survival of Grand Duchess Anastasia, 80 years or so after her possible death.  It didn't pass a slur on her character or on anyone else's for that matter.  It doesn't deny her death; it just doesn't mention it.  That is because 1) Anastasia's death isn't a certainty, as there is no body and 2) it is about a legend, not the truth. 

People can get offended by what they want, but I really do think some people have gone too far on this one.

Rachel
xx

[Marlene]

Oliver Stone's movie DOES NOT GLAMORIZE Sept 11th -- - the movie is seen through the eyes of the firefighters and other resuce people.  Mind you, I have not seen the movie or Flight 93 - because I would be balling my eyes out afterward.  No one rushed to make a movie right afterward ... although one movie being made at the time airbrushed the trade center out of it - for fear of upsetting people.  I saw another movie not long afterward (which had scenes showing the WTC - and the audience started cheering at the sight of the buildings).

From what I understand both World Trade Center and Flight 93 were extremely respectful movies. 

Consider the number of books and movies that include Pearl Harbor, or even World War II - or Movies about the Holocaust?  Or even the terrorist attack at the Munich Olympic games in 1972.

Personally, I think Lisa is taking this far too seriously regarding the Anastasia Animated film.  We have no idea if Anastasia was brave in her final days.  It is an animated film, and nothing more. 

'Personal and moral dilemmas'? Please.  This is an animated cartoon we're talking about here.  Some people need to get some perspective. 

Let's compare Anastasia with a more recent film, World Trade Center.

I find World Trade Center insensitive and I refused to watch it because I think glamourising the September 11th attacks just five years after it happened is disgusting and wrong.  Thousands of people died, and Hollywood can't wait to make a film about it.  Now that gets my goat.

Fox made a fun film about the legendary stories surrounding the possible survival of Grand Duchess Anastasia, 80 years or so after her possible death.  It didn't pass a slur on her character or on anyone else's for that matter.  It doesn't deny her death; it just doesn't mention it.  That is because 1) Anastasia's death isn't a certainty, as there is no body and 2) it is about a legend, not the truth. 

People can get offended by what they want, but I really do think some people have gone too far on this one.

Rachel
xx

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

I agree, Marlene- I think Lisa is taking this far too seriously, and that is why I think she and some others need to take a step back and gather some perspective on this issue.

I know what you're saying about the film to do with September 11th and its similarities to war movies, etc, but for me, it's just too soon to be making those events into films.  I think they should have waited until it wasn't so raw for so many people.  I don't need a film to remind me; I can still remember the shock and horror I felt watching those towers go down. I just don't think there was a need to make a film about September 11th; why? What is the purpose? We all remember what happened.  We don't need Nicholas Cage to act it out for us.

Rachel
xx