MovieChat Forums > Anastasia (1997) Discussion > Wasn't the Czar Nicholas a pretty evil d...

Wasn't the Czar Nicholas a pretty evil dude? This movie glorifies him

posted 13 years ago by IndaChood
35 replies | jump to latest

My family were jewish communists and he sent them to Siberia, they were educated doctors but they had to drive a ferry across Lake Baikal just because they were Jews. He also had pogroms where he'd just send kossacks to go raid Jewish villages and do things like slice pregnant women's stomachs open just to raise Russian morale! Also he completely ignored to common people and is responsible for the huge divide of haves and have nots that lead to the people revolting in the first place.

In short he was a horrible leader and the Romanovs were horrible Czars and a joke for their country, I like this movie but I don't like how they romanticize this disgusting excuse for a human being that was Czar Nicholas II
Not to mention Bloody Sunday. He singlehandedly destroyed the Russian economy with his retarded wars and his actions got the entire Russian naval fleet destroyed. He was basically as bad as Stalin, nearly worse but this movie makes him and his family out to be kindhearted innocent royals

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] IndaChood 13 years ago

He ordered bands of murderers in to Jewish towns to raise national morale and unity, how is that not evil?

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] super-staff 12 years ago

What the poster means is, there is a general consensus that Nicholas was a "good" man in a rather basic sense of the word. He was a family man and for the most part kind, but at the same time rather simple, immature and a foolishly horrible ruler. He made bad decisions not out of contempt or malice, but rather out of idiocy. Really just imagine, much of his time as Czar was similar to a small child saying "I don't wanna" when given a task and then either leaving the work unattended or in the hands of someone else.

Definitely agree with this.

[–] stayprettystockholm 12 years ago

Yes and no.

Everyone is evil. But we have the capability to make good or evil choices.

Though you're dressed in rags, you wear an air of queenly grace

[–] electrictroy 8 years ago

The movie is based on the Anastasia Myth which began during the early communist era (1920s and 30s). The old royal family looks great compared to the 10 million citizens killed by Lenin & Stalin.

[–] aljaz_ciber 13 years ago

You're right-czarism was very unfair and cruel to majority of Russians. But now that that chapter of history is pretty much closed, we must also see the good things it brought, not only the bad ones. If it weren't for the czars and the russian nobility, we might never have some of the greatest writers, artists and composers of all times. Some of them (like Tolstoy and Pushkin) were aristocrats themselves, while others (like Tchaikovsky for instance) would never get a chance to compose without their rich sponsors. Oh, and I almost forgot to mention all the wonderful palaces made in that era. Once again, I'm not trying to defend the czars and the privileged nobility in any way, I'm just saying that every story has two sides (and where on earth would humanity be, if we would only see the bad sides all the time?!).

[–] TakeNoPrisonersMFP 13 years ago

Only the Communists cast him as "evil" in such a simplistic manner. He was a man who did good and bad, and made mistakes that hurt others as well as himself. Calling him "evil" is childishly simplistic and demonstrates a fundamentally poor understanding of history.

[–] IndaChood 13 years ago

Um, he instituted pogroms. That is an act of pure evil.

You know what happened in the pogroms right? My great grandpa told me grandma stories about the village having to watch as the kossacks took pregnant women and sliced open their bellies infront of everyone.

Nicholas did that in order to try to raise the morale of the rest of Russia.

It is not simplistic to call the man who made these acts of evil happen evil himself.

[–] electrictroy 8 years ago

It appears you've already made-up your mind, but the Czar's pogroms only killed 100,000 people while the Communist purges under Lenin/Stalin killed 10,000,000.

People living under that genocide looked back on the royal family as better than communism. This movie Anastasia is set during that communist period.

[–] lockon_stratos 12 years ago

They created great athletes as well.

---

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] forgetnorway 13 years ago

I'm no expert, but I think in this case, Its because Anastasia is just a child, she didnt understand what was going on? She just wanted a family and to be loved like everyone else? Just my opinion.

With a prompter in every window whispering comebacks shy people would have the last laugh

[–] anya_angie 13 years ago

No it doesn't. In fact, we never learn anything from this film about Nicholai or his reign aside from the fact that there was a revolution. It's never stated why, or how he ruled, because a child of 3 most likely wouldn't understand.

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

[–] bradhig 13 years ago

Do you people realize that previous czars also carried out pogroms? I believe the exception was Alexander the Second who was a mild czar.

[–] JustEs 13 years ago

Misdirected more than evil. He was raised to believe that because he was the heir to the throne, he was God's emissary on Earth and anything he said went. He had no idea how the poor of his country lived and didn't care. But it's because it's the way he and all czars were raised.

It's said he was a good father, and that's what this movie is all about - family, not politics.

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

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] anya_angie 12 years ago

You're referring to the film version of Anastasi right, not the real one? The real Anastasia wasn't a "little girl" when she was killed; none of the children were. "Little," in my opinion, isn't appropriate for someone in their late teens...

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

[–] JustEs 13 years ago

This most definitely isn't a "kids cartoon" - it's an animated feature film that adults can enjoy just as much as children - probably more. But it's a musical that's not supposed to be historical. If you've ever seen "The Sound of Music" and then read Maria von Trapp's biography, you'd be amazed how very little of what really happened to the von Trapps ended up in the movie - especially the fact that the real oldest von Trapp child was a boy, not a girl, but she became a girl due to them writing "Sixteen Going on Seventeen", and I definitely wouldn't consider "The Sound of Music" a kids' cartoon.

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

[–] bella_maria11 13 years ago

How can he be as bad as Stalin? Stalin held the entire Soviet Union in a grip of terror throughout his reign. NO ONE was safe from being killed, tortured or sent to Gulag during his reign. Nikolai was a horrible ruler, but he pales in comparison to Stalin.

[–] ewd76-944-614898 12 years ago

I'm sorry that your family were Jewish Communists. You have my sympathy, but in reality Nicholas II was one of the most benevolent and enlightened rulers to have lived in all of human history until Obama came along. He is truly the light of the world.

-----------------------------------
I could care less, but I don’t care enough to bother.

[–] 007135 12 years ago

Nicolas II also violated treaties with Finland and infringed on their autonomy.

Your feeble skills are no match for the power of kittens.