MovieChat Forums > Anastasia (1997) Discussion > The Communists killed the Tsar and his f...

The Communists killed the Tsar and his family, NOT Rasputin...

posted 12 years ago by TakeNoPrisonersMFP
36 replies | jump to latest

...But why would Hollywood let the truth get in the way when avoiding criticism of Communists? And Anastasia herself has been proven to have perished with her family. These are well-established historical facts for anyone with even a precursory knowledge of 20th Century history.

Now, frankly, maybe I'm jumping the gun on this critique, I have not seen the movie. Maybe it does show the Communists murder the Romanovs, but rather I'm basing my criticism on this description:

"Years after losing her family to evil Rasputin, Czar Nicholas'
grown daughter is able to reunite with her grandmother in Paris."

That certainly sounds to me like Rasputin is the perpetrator of the murders in this movie. I haven't found the Communist Bolsheviks specifically mentioned in any of the reviews as being the actual murderers. I wouldn't put it past Hollywood to gloss-over communist crimes and pin them on someone else, especially since the entire Bolshevik Revolution also seems to be pinned on an undead Rasputin in this movie.

I could even understand making a movie with the premise that Anastasia somehow survived, because she was definitively proven to have perished there only relatively recently, and there were rumors and speculation about her for most of the 20th Century. However, ignoring the fact that the Bolsheviks slaughtered the royal family and casting Rasputin as the demonic villain responsible for the murders is a gross distortion of history. Now many children are going to grow-up thinking that Rasputin, rather than the Communists, was responsible for these crimes (he was dead before they were murdered). I see that this movie was released in Russia, there must have been outbursts of laughter at the pathetic failure to get basic historical facts straight. Russians do generally know their own history nowadays. I realize that this is just a children's animated movie, however there would no doubt be many outraged people if such a movie misrepresented the facts about notorious crimes committed in the West. Would it have been so bad to let the Communists be the villains in the story? Would that have been bad for children? Only in the eyes of Hollywood. Shameful.

[–] ANightToRemember 12 years ago

Now, frankly, maybe I'm jumping the gun on this critique, I have not seen the movie.

No, the communists don't murder Rasputin in this movie. He seems to... well, kill himself. The movie claims he sold his soul in order to have the power to destroy the Romanov Dynasty out of anger. He was fired after they discovered he was "power mad" and "dangerous". He sets a curse upon the family that declares they will be destroyed. This happens in the first few minutes, so it isn't really a spoiler.

Communists are in the movie. Yes, the royal family is still killed by them (only it's during one night - not a period of months or a civil war). They are featured a few times in the first few minutes, but the majority of the movie is outside of Russia anyways.

First of all, what's up with the whole anti-Hollywood in this comment? It's not 1940 - communists aren't part of (and really weren't ever) Hollywood. And there's been multiple movies with communists as the bad guys. There's literally HUNDREDS of video games with communist enemies.

As for the movie, yeah, Rasputin is a lame villain. I've always thought communists tracking her down to remove any threat to the throne would have been a lot more interesting, darker, yet still appropriate (The Lion King would probably be seen as more horrific). The movie has more of a "magical" side when it comes to the villain. But it really focuses on Anastasia more and finding her own family. But, the music is fantastic, the animation is stunning, and it really is something to just sit back and have fun watching, even though it's way, way far from being accurate.

Halfblood #9
Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief Boards

[–] liutenantsalt 8 years ago

"First of all, what's up with the whole anti-Hollywood in this comment? It's not 1940 - communists aren't part of (and really weren't ever) Hollywood."

Not big on history, huh?

[–] MsGAPeach 12 years ago

Just remember, this movie was made in 1997 and the bodies of Anastasia & her brother were not found until 2008 or 2009.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (49761343) 8 years ago

Just remember, this movie was made in 1997 and the bodies of Anastasia & her brother were not found until 2008 or 2009.

It was never in doubt that Anastasia had been killed in the massacre--not even in 1997 before the DNA tests or the discovery of the bodies. That whole angle was always nothing more than an urban legend, so the movie doesn't get a free pass just because it came out before all of this evidence conclusively proved without a shadow of a doubt that she had died.

---
IMDB, flagging ppl for bull💩 since 1995. 

[–] ruudos 8 years ago

Well the movie is merely loosely based on that urban legend.
It's a cartoon not a documentary.

[–] rc1990 7 years ago

Yawn.

[–] anya_angie 12 years ago

The movie never says that he did. In the film he wants to kill them (and does try to kill Anastasia of course) but it never implies that the revolution was CAUSED by him (he just helped the revolutionaries a bit).

It's called paying attention.

Olympic Champions should push the boundaries of their sport. Evgeni Plushenko is one such athlete.

[–] avlasnik 12 years ago

The original poster claimed to have never seen the movie. They would have no idea how things played out.

[–] JustEs 12 years ago

And when the OP claimed to never have seen the movie, I ignored the rest of their comment, since it's obviously not a comment on the movie.

There's a disclaimer at the end of the movie that says that the whole movie is fictional, so that's how I always looked at it - as a "what could've been" - not what actually was.

You're entitled to your opinion as long as I'm entitled to mine. And this is mine!

[–] anya_angie 12 years ago

All films have such disclaimers. Oddly enough, we can thank Prince Felix Yussupov for that. When Hollywood made "Rasputin & The Empress" it was so inaccurate it infuriated him, and he sued the studio. As a result of that lawsuit, all films must now carry such disclaimers, whether they are based on fact or not.

"The path shall be overcome by he who walks it." -- EVGENI PLUSHENKO

[–] JustEs 12 years ago

Do even true documentaries have that disclaimer? That's interesting that something based on the Romanovs is what led to the disclaimer - I didn't know that.

But that's still how I always look at any movie, even those based on fact. The emphasis is always "based on fact" - not actual factual. Even if you watch true crime shows, if you see the same crime done on different shows, there's always differences, so you never know for sure which one (if any) is actually accurate.

You're entitled to your opinion as long as I'm entitled to mine. And this is mine!

[–] anya_angie 12 years ago

That's a very interesting question... I don't watch documentaries, usually, unless they concern my interests, and never bothered to look at the credits to see if there was such a disclaimer... If I ever get my hands on "The Life & Times Of Harvey Milk" I will let you know about that... I don't have any actual documentaries in my collection; that's about the only one I want I think.

But as for films based on history, they don't have the same disclaimer, but they have a similar one. Usually it involves saying something like "Although this film is based on historical events," and then say that depictions of events and people may not be accurate. If I had my copy of Apollo 13 handy I'd be able to give you word-for-word the disclaimer that appears there.

But yes, Anastasia is not based on history. It's based (very, very loosely) on a play by Marcelle Maurette, later adapted for Broadway and American audiences by Guy Bolton. For a more accurate adaptation, check out the 1956 version, whose screenplay was co-written by Guy Bolton himself. Unfortunately I've yet to read or see Bolton's original play, but considering he is the one responsible for the original American play, it stands to reason it's pretty close.

Finding Neverland, Frost/Nixon, Amadeus, and Beyond The Sea are also films adapted from plays.

"The path shall be overcome by he who walks it." -- EVGENI PLUSHENKO

[–] JustEs 12 years ago

Oh, you're right! That's exactly the sort of disclaimers that the true crime shows use.

You're entitled to your opinion as long as I'm entitled to mine. And this is mine!

[–] escribidora 11 years ago

Interesting fact

«I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it - Jack Handey» :/

[–] escribidora 11 years ago

And it's called "artistic liberties"

«I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it - Jack Handey» :/

[–] jberning 10 years ago

He says he hadn't seen it was just basing it on a description.

However Rasputin plays a part in it, but it is the communists/revolutionaries that kill them. He helps them onto the grounds. And it even states that turmoil had been rising for awhile so he didn't even stir it up in the first place.

But historians have claimed that there are many other historical fallacies in the movie though.

[–] Kia00 12 years ago

Exactly right by the OP.

[–] Odilwerk 12 years ago

Oh come on.

If your going by that 'logic' then Aladdin is an accurate account of medieval middle eastern culture.

The lion king is an accurate portrayal of animals in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The fact is I very much doubt many people recite this film as a source for Tsarist Russian history. I also very much doubt that the people that talk about such things gain all of their knowledge from an animated film from the 90's, marketed I'll add as fantasy.

Honestly people, it's a childrens animated film based on myth and folklore that had been practically debunked by the time the film was released. Communism and all of it's bloody history isn't something a young child watching a film for entertainment needs to know about.

Would of made a much better childrens film had we seen the family huddled in a cellar being executed, slaughtered amongst the panic of loved ones. Anastasia huddled in a corner in absolute terror, finally being finished off by being *beep* stabbed to death at the grand old age of 17.

They needed an antagonist, Rasputin is the only one who even remotely fits the bill. Unless you have a demonic Lenin chasing Anastasia around Europe?

[–] liutenantsalt 8 years ago

Clearly, you don't understand how propaganda and conditioning work.

[–] super-staff 11 years ago

Welp.

I hope you're proud of yourself for tearing a cheesy kids' movie apart.

[–] Shiny-NZ 11 years ago

If you watch this movie hoping for an accurate history lesson on the saga of the House of Romanov - you're going to fail that test. You'd be better off heading to the Wikipedia page.

[–] liutenantsalt 8 years ago

You're better off getting your history from cartoons than Wikipedia.

[–] SkittlesMilly 11 years ago

Because this is a fantasy film (although of course, rooted in history), I don't think the team that made the film thought that the Communists would of made as great a running villain as Rasputin teamed with magic powers.

[–] FrozenFever 10 years ago

I get the feeling that these threads are written just so these history nerds can show off their knowledge.

Discuss

[–] brutuslignarius 7 years ago

that sounds about right.

[–] mafarie 10 years ago

And Pocahontas didn't quite play out like the movie, either. This is not the first case of a historically inaccurate, romanticized cartoon.

[–] raf-33 9 years ago

It's called poetic license, 3,000 years ago Homer was adding gods and sea creatures in to true life accounts of stuff. Anastasia didn't invent having fun with the truth.

The Op is either an immense idiot, an immensely sheltered individual or an immense troll. Strange that he never returned, leading me to believe he is the latter, it makes me wonder how boring your life must be to want to write a short essay just to troll people - you can troll with a sentence. "Scottish men wear skirts!" See?

Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived. -Isaac Asimov

[–] !!!deleted!!! (49761343) 8 years ago

And Pocahontas didn't quite play out like the movie, either. This is not the first case of a historically inaccurate, romanticized cartoon.

Yes, that's exactly right. That's why Disney had to put out a sequel, because of all the complaining.

---
IMDB, flagging ppl for bull💩 since 1995. 