Nicholas_and_Alexandra__Assessment_of_Romanov_History

Nicholas and Alexandra is useful as a source for the construction of history of the Modern World to a moderately large extent as it presents the reign and death of Tsar Nicholas II and his wife Tsarina Alexandra. It may be argued that there are factors of the film which take away from its historical usefulness. One of these factors would include that the characters and groups presented in the film may be interpreted differently to what they are recorded to have really been like due to the film misrepresenting them. Another factor which could've caused implications for the usefulness of the film would be the problems associated with “Disneyfication” of history in the film in order to present the film more like a story than a source of history. Another problematic factor is the film reflects social democratic values and attitudes in order to possibly influence or create values and attitudes of the viewer. Furthermore, the director of Nicholas and Alexandra (Franklin J. Schaffner) may have influenced or altered the story in accordance with his perspective and views of Nicholas and his wife. The reliability of the film will depend on whether the film is historically accurate or not. Nicholas and Alexandra is a historical film due to the historical content it conveys. A film may be described as historical if “[the film has] as their central plot documentable events, such as a person’s life or a war or a revolution.” Under this requirement Nicholas and Alexandra may be classified as an historical film as it presents the life of an important figure in history. In fact it is said that “Director Franklin Schaffner’s adaption [of the book “Nicholas and Alexandra”] delivers a long, detailed look at tsar and tsarina-warts and all.” In addition, the film presents milestones of Russian history during the period of roughly 1904 – 1918. These milestones would include Russia falling into the hands of the Bolshevik party in late 1917 and the assassination of the Romanov family consequential to the new Bolshevik rule. Furthermore, aspects of history such as the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and the Russian participation in World War One were also depicted in the movie.. Therefore, Nicholas and Alexandra is a historical film because of its detailed representation of Tsar Nicholas II's life and it's depiction of historical events in the early 1900’s. Interpretations of historical groups and characters depicted in Nicholas and Alexandra have changed over time and are possibly misrepresented in the film. The Romanov family and the Bolsheviks are all presented differently to what some historians and other historical films have depicted them to have been like. Many historians seem to have an unsympathetic view of Nicholas and his wife and believe that his power was very detrimental to Russia. For example, journalist Stanley Kauffman has described the tsar and tsarina as “two silly people who got what they deserved.” Nicholas and Alexandra presents Nicholas and his family with respect and sympathy and the movie was said to be "too kind a depiction when compared to the historical record." From the very first scene right until the very end of the movie the viewer is manipulated to like the Tsar and Tsarina by growing sympathy towards them because of horrifying incidents that occur such as the problems they had with their son Alexei’s illness (haemophilia), the loss of control of the Russian Army during riots and the harsh death they meet at the conclusion of the film. It can also be argued that the Bolsheviks have been misrepresented in the film too. It can be said that Nicholas and Alexandra conveyed the Bolsheviks to be more radical and evil then they actually were. Despite the fact that historically the political parties political activism was interpreted to be cruel, it can be said that the movie over-emphasises this cruelty by dramatising radical activities the Bolsheviks undertook. From the very beginning of the film, the Bolsheviks are presented as an extremely corrupt, unprincipled and a ruthlessly evil political party. It can be said that the leaders of the Bolshevik revolution reflected “viewpoints having more to with American Orthodoxies than Russian History” and that Lenin was portrayed as a “Russian Hitler.” The evil and ruthless characteristics the Bolsheviks are depicted to have had are evident when Lenin is depicted as a man of brutal nature when he states “Murder, arson, terror, I’ll agree to anything that gives us [the Bolsheviks] power.” Interpretations of historical groups and character depicted in Nicholas and Alexandra have changed over time as Nicholas has been presented in a more positive way then a lot of historians view him to be like whilst the Bolsheviks are presented to be more evil and ruthless then what they possibly were like. Nicholas and Alexandra has problems associated with “Disneyfication” of history in order to present it more like a story than a source of history. As mentioned before, the film attempts to create a positive viewer attitude towards the Romanov family. This is done in order to make the main characters of the film likeable and to present them as kind, compassionate people, therefore, this is why Nicholas and Alexandra has been “Disneyfied.” An example of the way Nicholas is portrayed to be compassionate is evident in a scene of the movie relating to “Bloody Sunday.” The movie depicts Nicholas to be outraged when he hears of the events of “Bloody Sunday.” The emphasis on the tsar’s mood suggests that he is compassionate and cares for his people who were affected by the event. However, historically this is debateable. Additionally, the emphasised luxury on the Romanov’s life is another way the movie has been “Disneyfied.” Throughout the film all characters of the film are presented impeccably and the palaces in which they reside in are magnificent. These luxuries the Romanovs are conveyed to have give the viewer a sense of admiration for the family. The film presents Rasputin’s character to be the typical ‘evil guy’ of the film. Rasputin is used a scapegoat in the film to all of the problems created by the tsar and tsarina. It has been pointed out that Rasputin was conveyed as “[a] lecherous holy man, whose meddling in politics had fatal consequences for her [the tsarina] and her family.” Nicholas and Alexandra has been “Disneyfied” by its questionable portrayal of the Romanov’s family compassion and lifestyle and its illustration of Rasputin to be the typical ‘evil guy’ of the film. Nicholas and Alexandra reflects democratic values and attitudes to a large extent as it shows the flaws in a feudal system. The movie conveys the idea that an Autocracy is an illegitimate system to rule a country by showing the negative impacts the Autocracy had during Nicholas’ rule. The Feudal system gave Nicholas full political power in Russia “from the central issues of war and peace to the quarrels of peasants over who owned a cow.” It was what the tsar chose to do with this Feudal power, in combination with the political climate of the time which led to the fall of the Autocracy. Nicholas’ unpopular decisions were also conveyed as one of the reasons why the Autocracy was an illegitimate way to rule Russia. At the beginning of the film, the tsar is warned by his advisors that Russian people want a representative government, health care, voting and workers' rights. It is depicted that as a ruler, Tsar Nicholas II had little priority for making a change to these things and preferred to focus his power on things such as the Russian commitment to the World War One effort. Nicholas and Alexandra has scenes displaying the poor, unsanitary working conditions in which the Russian peasants lived in. Scenes prior to the “Bloody Sunday” scene demonstrate that the peasants intend to be part of a peaceful demonstration. In this particular demonstration they plan to ask for the tsar’s help as they are seeking “truth, justice and protection.” The viewer later finds out that this peaceful demonstration was the one which triggered “Bloody Sunday.” Whilst whether or not Nicholas agreed to the killing of these peasants, Nicholas admits that he wouldn’t have met the peasant’s requests for help. Therefore, it was the tsar’s neglecting of the Russian peasants, which made up a large percentage of the Russian population of the time, which is demonstrated to be one of the reasons why the feudal system was so unsuccessful. The fact that Tsar Nicholas’ II decisions made in the film in regard to World War One were seen as unwise was another example of the flaws in a Feudal system which the movie conveyed. A scene of the film depicting one of the Russian Soldiers shooting himself whilst he is at war is symbolic of why the tsar’s decision to enter the war was injudicious. The film portrays the tsar’s decision to help the war effort himself whilst leaving Alexandra in his place to be even more injudicious. This is mainly due to the fact that there are riots in St. Petersburg due to the tsar’s decision to neglect the peasant’s of Russia. The film confirms Tsar Nicholas’ II decision to go to war was a mistake as Kerensky announces to the Russian parliament “a third of our army is still unarmed and they are surrendering in tens of thousands...the tsar must stop hiding with his soldiers and come back to Petersburg.” The danger of the power of a leader of an feudal system is even expressed in some of the final scenes of the movie when the character of Tsar Nicholas II states “I have learned that a strong man has no need of power and a weak man is destroyed by it. I am being punished for what I have done.” Nicholas and Alexandra illustrates the danger of an feudal system by conveying all the harm Nicholas did to Russia due to his feudal power; therefore the movie reflects democratic values and attitudes to a large extent. It is necessary to consider from what perspective and how reliable Nicholas and Alexandra is when assessing its usefulness as a source for the construction of the modern world. Director, Franklin J.Schaffner’s perspective of the period of history that the film presents possibly detracts from the film’s historical usefulness. Schaffner is an American man and the movie was produced in 1971, during The Cold War. It is important to consider that Schaffner could’ve had a negative view of Communism and this is possibly why the Bolsheviks were presented harshly in the film. He may have also believed that the feudal system was illegitimate and this could’ve been the reason for the harsh depiction of the system. However, the film is reliable to a moderately large extent and has been described as “terrific history, for Hollywood.” The film hardly misses out, or adds, any aspects of the Nicholas’ rule from the time period the film is set in. Nicholas and Alexandra is very historically accurate. Nicholas and Alexandra presents a detailed, accurate depiction of Tsar Nicholas II and his family’s life. It also presents key events of Russian history which occurred in the early 1900’s with a high degree of accuracy. The way the film presents the Romanovs and the Bolsheviks is a factor taking away from its historical usefulness. It could be said that the film misrepresents them by romanticising the Romanov’s rule and portraying the Bolsheviks to be ruthless and evil people. The “Disneyfication” of the film potentially takes away from its historical accuracy. The use of “Disneyfication” caused yet another more romanticised view of the Romanovs and an evil portrayal of Rasputin, using him as a scapegoat the Romanov’s problems. Furthermore, the fact that Nicholas and Alexandra attempts to reflect democratic values and attitudes by showing the flaws of the feudal system creates a viewer dislike to a system of an feudal system. The perspective of the movie too must be considered as the director may present certain aspects of this particular history in a biased way. The movie on the whole reliable and presents all aspects of history very accurately. Overall, Nicholas and Alexandra is useful as a source for the construction of the modern world to a moderately large extent.