HBO's Rasputin by Director Uli Edel
Alan Rickman Plays the Infamous Russian in 1996 Movie
Nov 17, 2008
This period in Russia provides excellent fodder for a filmmaker, and director Uli Edel makes use of the dramatic and mystical elements inherent in the life of the ‘mad monk.’ By sticking close to the history as it happened and showing small examples of overall issues and characteristics of the time and players in the story, Edel succeeds in producing a movie that runs only an hour and a half but still manages to successfully introduce audiences to the odd events leading up to the Russian Revolution and the fall of the royal family, and the life of the man who played such a large and unlikely role in them.
The Romanovs
Probably most effectively the film shows the humanity of the Romanov family. Events unfold from the perspective of the narrator, the young heir to the throne, Alexei. His childhood innocence and doomed, short life make the Romanovs incredibly sympathetic. Ian McKellan and Greta Scacchi do make Tsar Nicholas and the Empress Alexandra full, believable characters. The movie fleshes out the family so well, in fact, that it creates a biased view of the Romanovs by making them extremely likable.
We see the love that Nicholas and Alexandra have for each other and for their children with intimate, conversational scenes between them and scenes of the concern that they have for Alexei’s health and well-being. Their joy over Alexei’s recovery at the hands of Rasputin helps us to understand how and why they so willingly sacrificed much of their credibility and perhaps even facilitated their downfall by keeping him within their circle, even when the public balked at his presence.
The Mad Monk
Alan Rickman, as Rasputin, does a wonderful job of showing the man’s exceedingly crass and debauched, and yet magnetic, personality. Although the film occasionally mentions other possibilities for Rasputin’s abilities to heal the prince, such as Dr. Botkin’s insistence that he simply hypnotizes the boy, slowing his blood pressure and thus stopping his bleeding, for the most part the movie gives no explanation other than a supernatural power.
The movie draws a drastic contrast between the proper and mannered Romanovs and the monk in a dinner scene in which he crudely sits and begins eating with his hands and talking about elicit and inappropriate issues at the table. He explains his theory that “the soul belongs to God, but the flesh belongs to me.” This foreshadows later scenes, like that with the Princess Ivanovna, in which he seduces women, many times of noble birth, by telling them that they must sin greatly to repent greatly and, when that does not work, that the greatest sin of pride is chastity and they must humble themselves before him. He also tells them that, since God talks to him, sex with him (Rasputin), brings them closer to Him.
When the tsar confronts him about his dinner conversation, Rasputin proclaims desperately “I didn’t chose to be holy, Papa. It frightens me, too.” This quote sums up the main idea about Rasputin that the film seems to be showing: he was not some brilliantly evil mastermind, but rather a simple peasant chosen by God to save the throne. The extent to which the director and screenwriter believe this and how much of it they incorporate for dramatic effect seems unclear, but one feels at the end that the declaration that Rasputin makes to the tsarina at the beginning of the movie, that God will only save Alexei if the Romanovs listen to Him through Rasputin, is true. Rasputin also comes across as more likeable than many of the royal advisors, particularly Dr. Botkin. In one notable scene, they have a discussion about the soul. “I’ve done many autopsies,” says the doctor, “and I’ve never found a soul.” “How many emotions or memories have you found?” retorts Rasputin. Here the debauched peasant seems morally superior to the emperor’s doctor.
Lingering Distrust of the Communist Party
The film obviously has a bias against the revolutionaries. Whereas the Romanovs appear in all of their human lovability, the revolutionaries seem cold and heartless. The audience does not see their human side, and it becomes as hard to like them as it is easy to like the royals. The final strike against the revolutionaries comes with the scene of the execution of the tsar and his family and servants. The scene is brutal and difficult to watch, and a soldier shoots the helpless young Alexei as easily as he would put a horse out of its misery.
The film ends with a printed message on the screen informing the viewer that the bones of the family that were uncovered in 1991 and promised a ceremonial reburial by Yeltsin have now been packed up in a storage room due to a shift back towards a Communist majority in the government. In these portraits of Communist players, a definite disapproval of their politics emerges. This, along with the sympathetic portrayal of the royal family, makes the film Rasputin a definite product of the newly post-Soviet era, still condemning the actions of the Communists, and always fearful of a resurgence of soviet control.
