Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Russian royal family is one of the most interesting in history next to the English yet there's almost no documenteries, docuseries, movies, etc.
I'm currently watching the Secrets of the Six Wives of Henry VIII. Henry VIII is one of the most popularly depicted era in English history.
But the Russians had their heyday. Did the Cold War and the rise of Communism make Hollywood balk at highlighting the Russians?
I cannot speak for other countries are interested in but I think most Americans are primarily interested first in the British monarchy and British history, and for understandable reasons. Especially Richard I (the Lionheart), Edward I (Longshanks), Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, George III, Queen Victoria, King George VI and todays Queen Elizabeth II. And of course King Arthur LOL.
After the British, I would think the French monarchy is the second most shown. Primarily the stories around the Three Musketeers and the Man in the Iron Mask, both feature a young Louis XIV. Also shown occasionally is the unfortunate King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette and also of course Napoleon.
In contrast, the Russian royal family is not that well known in America. By far the best known Czar is Nicholas II but to make a movie about Nicholas and his young family when everyone knows the tragedy that befalls them would probably be considered by Hollywood to be too depressing for most people.
By far the best known Czar is Nicholas II but to make a movie about Nicholas and his young family when everyone knows the tragedy that befalls them would probably be considered by Hollywood to be too depressing for most people.
There has already been a big budget picture, 1971's "Nicholas and Alexandra" which covers the years from 1904 through the execution of the family. It received six Academy Award nominations.
It is a good motion picture which sticks closely to the historical facts, but the final third bogs down a we sit through a long wait which we know will end with the shootings. Very well acted, the film is stolen by Tom (Dr. Who) Baker whenever he is on screen. Baker plays Rasputin and seems to be enjoying himself immensely in the role.
There has already been a big budget picture, 1971's "Nicholas and Alexandra" which covers the years from 1904 through the execution of the family. It received six Academy Award nominations.
It is a good motion picture which sticks closely to the historical facts, but the final third bogs down a we sit through a long wait which we know will end with the shootings. Very well acted, the film is stolen by Tom (Dr. Who) Baker whenever he is on screen. Baker plays Rasputin and seems to be enjoying himself immensely in the role.
Not well known...? What do you base that on, OP?
My current amateur interest is Russian history. The above movie was indeed a good one. But big movies are hardly an indication of interest. Look instead at books available on the family and that Russian period.
I cannot speak for other countries are interested in but I think most Americans are primarily interested first in the British monarchy and British history, and for understandable reasons. Especially Richard I (the Lionheart), Edward I (Longshanks), Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, George III, Queen Victoria, King George VI and todays Queen Elizabeth II. And of course King Arthur LOL.
After the British, I would think the French monarchy is the second most shown. Primarily the stories around the Three Musketeers and the Man in the Iron Mask, both feature a young Louis XIV. Also shown occasionally is the unfortunate King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette and also of course Napoleon.
In contrast, the Russian royal family is not that well known in America. By far the best known Czar is Nicholas II but to make a movie about Nicholas and his young family when everyone knows the tragedy that befalls them would probably be considered by Hollywood to be too depressing for most people.
You left out Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine, subjects of one of my favorite movies, The Lion in Winter.
Historically inaccurate, but a good watch and the scenery is well done.
When I invent the time machine in the future, I want to go back and meet Eleanor.
I enjoy reading a wide range of history topics and have done so for many years. The movies and television cater mostly to the lowest common denominator of viewers. That’s where the money is. Probably 99% of Americans have absolutely no knowledge of any of the historical figures mentioned in this thread.
The Russian royal family is one of the most interesting in history next to the English yet there's almost no documenteries, docuseries, movies, etc.
I'm currently watching the Secrets of the Six Wives of Henry VIII. Henry VIII is one of the most popularly depicted era in English history.
But the Russians had their heyday. Did the Cold War and the rise of Communism make Hollywood balk at highlighting the Russians?
That's not Hollywood. Its PBS based on a British show by Lucy Worsley. She did a great one...on the Romanovs. Called Empire of the Tsars. Perhaps you just need to look more closely.
The Russian royal family is one of the most interesting in history next to the English yet there's almost no documenteries, docuseries, movies, etc.
I'm currently watching the Secrets of the Six Wives of Henry VIII. Henry VIII is one of the most popularly depicted era in English history.
But the Russians had their heyday. Did the Cold War and the rise of Communism make Hollywood balk at highlighting the Russians?
One would expect there to be far more Hollywood films about the monarchs of England/United Kingdom than about those of the Russian Empire for the simple reason that the United States is far more culturally connected to the British Isles than to Russia. The United States began as a series of British colonies. We share a language, not to mention an alphabet. Far more Americans can trace their ancestry to Great Britain than to Russia.
That said, there have been Hollywood examinations of Russia, either with a historical bent or in fiction. The aforementioned Nicholas and Alexandra. Various tales about Anna Anderson/Anastasia. Audrey Hepburn as Natasha Rostova in War and Peace. Yul Brenner in The Brothers Karamazov. 1965's Doctor Zhivago.
I think the lack of films about pre-1917 Russia is mostly due to the limited interest in the West. A cultural, social and technological backwater, it's generally not that compelling a subject for the masses. In the inter-war years, the medium was so new that there was much more to write about than the horribly bleak USSR of its first couple of decades. But certainly, post-WWII the second Red Scare had a dampening effect*. Between McCarthy's finger-pointing at people, mostly over nothing (Charlie Chaplin was banned from the U.S. for such things as having the temerity to criticize capitalism and advocating for the opening of a second front during the war), and HUAC browbeating the studios until they began blacklisting, it's easy to see that Hollywood stood to lose a lot if it did anything that could be portrayed (however dishonestly) as pro-communist in any way. And Hollywood itself got in on the act. Walt Disney claimed that communists in the industry was a serious problem. Ronald Reagan (then SAG president) was both a public finger-pointer as well as a secret FBI informant.
Hell, Clint Eastwood directed Letters from Iwo Jima in 2006, over six decades after the war ended and Japan became an ally of the West. And still, I heard a local radio blatherer railing against Eastwood for daring to present the point of view of Japanese soldiers during the war. Doing something far more innocuous regarding the Soviets was orders of magnitude more dangerous during the Cold War, especially early on.
* - Actually, this began to ramp up in the late 1930s. While Lindbergh was hobnobbing with the Third Reich and Disney was socializing with Mussolini's son-in-law, the ideological enemy of fascism was beginning to draw the film industry's focus as a foe, and you were either with Team Red-Baiting or you were 'one of them'. But there was a bit of a pause when it became clear that, as bad as the USSR was, it was somewhat less bad than Nazi Germany. That pause, of course, wound down with the war.
Basically, it was made by the BBC in 1974 and it is about the decades before the fall of the ruling houses of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia.
As for your question, it might be because Romanov Russia never captivated U.S. audiences (or the American people in general, for that matter) the same way that, say, the British royal family or even French royal family (ex. Louis XIV) did.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
