Nicholas and Alexandra (1971)
UK
183 min | UK:189 min
Color (Eastmancolor)
2.20 : 1
English | French | German | Russian
DIR: Franklin J. Schaffner
PROD:Andrew Donally, Franklin J. Schaffner, Sam Spiegel
DP: Freddie Young
SCR: James Goldman
Cast: Michael Jayston, Janet Suzman, Irene Worth, Sir Michael Redgrave, Dame Diana Quick, Brian Cox, Tom Baker
ED: Ernest Walter
PROD DES: John Box
Music: Richard Rodney Bennett
Based on the bestselling biography by Robert K. Massie, but less sympathetic to its main characters, “Nicholas and Alexandra” follow the last thirteen years in the life of Russia’s Emperor and Empress as they face personal heartache, disloyalty and Revolution.
Set against the backdrop of the Russian Revolution, this drama tells the real-life story of the last Russian czar, Nicholas Romanov (Michael Jayston), and his wife, Alexandra (Janet Suzman). The film looks into the private lives of the imperial couple and their daughters (including the much-talked-about Anastasia), the painful secret that bound them all to the mystical monk Rasputin (Tom Baker) and the eventual execution of the entire family.
my source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067483/
review:
In this 1971 Academy Award-winning film, the cinematography of Freddie Young contrasts the pomp and ceremony of the Russian court of Czar Nicholas II (Michael Jayston) and his beloved wife, Czarina Alexandra (Janet Suzman), with the misery and despair of the czar’s poverty-stricken subjects. The result is a visual triumph that captures the supreme elegance of a Russian ball and the abject horror of a czarist assault on ragged peasantry. Although the film’s three-hour length and methodical development displeased many critics, aficionados of history, epic spectacle, and larger-than-life characters may find this production an exciting journey through an age in turmoil. The history is accurate, the settings and costumes authentic, and the acting excellent. Jayston is appropriately handsome and haughty, and Suzman both regal and human. Tom Baker is mesmerizing as Rasputin, although his sharp wit and urbanity are historically inaccurate. The film gets an extra kick from old pros Laurence Olivier as Count Witte, Jack Hawkins as Count Fredericks, and Michael Redgrave as Sazonov. The film won Oscars for art and set direction and for costume design. It won Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Actress (Suzman), and Best Cinematography. ~ Mike Cummings, All Movie Guide
Upon watching the ending of Tree of Life with my sweaty palms tucked and my cold crushed bladder about to explode, I couldn’t help but wonder when this Dali painting would be over with. Further, I couldn’t help notice people leaving the theater as if they were leaving a funeral. It was hard to keep from emitting a boyish cheek to cheek grin upon seeing this.
It was a well thought out stumper for sure, and absolutely something deeper than I could dream up. I was glad to be discussing it on the ride home with my girlfriend besides being somewhat confused by vague aspects or the directional motif of the film and the questions it raised; which she was in need of looking up on her Iphone. After I returned from relieving my self which I was holding onto because I did not want to miss what was going to happen next. She looked it up while I disappeared to the restroom, and then I was ultimately disappointed to hear what she read, Malick’s reasoning for the direction of the film. It was upsetting because although I enjoyed the films cinematic quality and complex storyline I realized it wasn’t all that of an unfamiliar concept and that really all I was questioning was how or why Malick composed it the way he did. 2001 A Space Oddity? And after recently watching the quite obscure Gaspar Noe’s Enter the Void, in which an idea that has been long thought of, and interesting, he was able to take this abstract idea and depict it clearly, though the only problem I found with that film was how much time I spent flying through the streets of Tokyo. Although, I guess working with “viewing time” can be an art of its own, I found my self being pushed against my comfort of time.
I enjoyed the relationship between the oldest son and the father. The way he built that was somewhat entertaining story on its own. That could have possibly been elaborated on and the connection made more clearly. I was confused after a while, I was being thrown all around by the films ideas; as if the Gravitron just came to a complete stop and I was still upside down still going in circles in my head (Barf). And I was also confused by the boy with the lawn mower haircut, was I not paying attention, what mischief caused that. It was too choppy but I loved the big bang concept and the visual experience but could some of this be condensed into a special on National Geographic?
Although definitely different I feel some of the most similar concepts or ideas are found in Enter the Void, and are displayed in a more tangible way which I feel is necessary to connect such an abstract idea already, if that is, what you’re trying to convey. All in all I wasn’t completely disappointed or thrilled either. It could have been edited differently to assist the viewer in understanding these unparalleled ideas. 3/5.
(Temporary) Film database submission mechanism almost 3 years ago
Nicholas and Alexandra (1971)
UK
183 min | UK:189 min
Color (Eastmancolor)
2.20 : 1
English | French | German | Russian
DIR: Franklin J. Schaffner
PROD:Andrew Donally, Franklin J. Schaffner, Sam Spiegel
DP: Freddie Young
SCR: James Goldman
Cast: Michael Jayston, Janet Suzman, Irene Worth, Sir Michael Redgrave, Dame Diana Quick, Brian Cox, Tom Baker
ED: Ernest Walter
PROD DES: John Box
Music: Richard Rodney Bennett
Based on the bestselling biography by Robert K. Massie, but less sympathetic to its main characters, “Nicholas and Alexandra” follow the last thirteen years in the life of Russia’s Emperor and Empress as they face personal heartache, disloyalty and Revolution.
Set against the backdrop of the Russian Revolution, this drama tells the real-life story of the last Russian czar, Nicholas Romanov (Michael Jayston), and his wife, Alexandra (Janet Suzman). The film looks into the private lives of the imperial couple and their daughters (including the much-talked-about Anastasia), the painful secret that bound them all to the mystical monk Rasputin (Tom Baker) and the eventual execution of the entire family.
my source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067483/
review:
In this 1971 Academy Award-winning film, the cinematography of Freddie Young contrasts the pomp and ceremony of the Russian court of Czar Nicholas II (Michael Jayston) and his beloved wife, Czarina Alexandra (Janet Suzman), with the misery and despair of the czar’s poverty-stricken subjects. The result is a visual triumph that captures the supreme elegance of a Russian ball and the abject horror of a czarist assault on ragged peasantry. Although the film’s three-hour length and methodical development displeased many critics, aficionados of history, epic spectacle, and larger-than-life characters may find this production an exciting journey through an age in turmoil. The history is accurate, the settings and costumes authentic, and the acting excellent. Jayston is appropriately handsome and haughty, and Suzman both regal and human. Tom Baker is mesmerizing as Rasputin, although his sharp wit and urbanity are historically inaccurate. The film gets an extra kick from old pros Laurence Olivier as Count Witte, Jack Hawkins as Count Fredericks, and Michael Redgrave as Sazonov. The film won Oscars for art and set direction and for costume design. It won Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Actress (Suzman), and Best Cinematography. ~ Mike Cummings, All Movie Guide
Go to Comment
WHEN THE FUCK IS THIS FILM HITTING THE US almost 3 years ago
ditto-?
Go to Comment
my bourgeoisie pov over 1 year ago
Upon watching the ending of Tree of Life with my sweaty palms tucked and my cold crushed bladder about to explode, I couldn’t help but wonder when this Dali painting would be over with. Further, I couldn’t help notice people leaving the theater as if they were leaving a funeral. It was hard to keep from emitting a boyish cheek to cheek grin upon seeing this.
It was a well thought out stumper for sure, and absolutely something deeper than I could dream up. I was glad to be discussing it on the ride home with my girlfriend besides being somewhat confused by vague aspects or the directional motif of the film and the questions it raised; which she was in need of looking up on her Iphone. After I returned from relieving my self which I was holding onto because I did not want to miss what was going to happen next. She looked it up while I disappeared to the restroom, and then I was ultimately disappointed to hear what she read, Malick’s reasoning for the direction of the film. It was upsetting because although I enjoyed the films cinematic quality and complex storyline I realized it wasn’t all that of an unfamiliar concept and that really all I was questioning was how or why Malick composed it the way he did. 2001 A Space Oddity? And after recently watching the quite obscure Gaspar Noe’s Enter the Void, in which an idea that has been long thought of, and interesting, he was able to take this abstract idea and depict it clearly, though the only problem I found with that film was how much time I spent flying through the streets of Tokyo. Although, I guess working with “viewing time” can be an art of its own, I found my self being pushed against my comfort of time.
I enjoyed the relationship between the oldest son and the father. The way he built that was somewhat entertaining story on its own. That could have possibly been elaborated on and the connection made more clearly. I was confused after a while, I was being thrown all around by the films ideas; as if the Gravitron just came to a complete stop and I was still upside down still going in circles in my head (Barf). And I was also confused by the boy with the lawn mower haircut, was I not paying attention, what mischief caused that. It was too choppy but I loved the big bang concept and the visual experience but could some of this be condensed into a special on National Geographic?
Although definitely different I feel some of the most similar concepts or ideas are found in Enter the Void, and are displayed in a more tangible way which I feel is necessary to connect such an abstract idea already, if that is, what you’re trying to convey. All in all I wasn’t completely disappointed or thrilled either. It could have been edited differently to assist the viewer in understanding these unparalleled ideas. 3/5.
Go to Comment