Is it possible to fully study the history of Russia in the late 17th and first quarter of the 18th century in the semi-documentary semi-fiction film Peter I: The Last Tsar and the First Emperor? And according to the Soviet dilogy of Sergei Gerasimov, “Peter’s Youth” and “In the Beginning of Glorious Affairs” (both in 1980)? And according to the antagonistic critical view of Merezhkovsky, whose personality you need to read separately to understand who it is and what it is, expressed in Vitaly Melnikov’s work Tsarevich Alexei (1996)? In all cases, the answer will be the same: no. It is banal because there is not enough timekeeping to reflect all aspects of a particular historical person, a particular landmark event. And simply because official history is the ruling class’s view of the past, and the author’s view is only the private subjective opinion of a particular person. So why did some Russian historians who broadcast their thoughts to the masses through appropriate blogs cling to Andrei Kravchuk and his work?
Of course, Kravchuk broke the historical firewood with his past films “Admiral”, “Union of Salvation” and especially “Viking”, which people with opposite views will not be able to forgive him for a long time, champions of strict adherence to facts in any artistic statement. And you will be right (I will not go into the details of these films now, because it will be for a long time). However, in the case of Peter I, I would like to stand up for the director. Yes, this is a state order for a significant date – the 350th anniversary of the birth of the first named Russian Emperor. So what? Almost all Soviet films on historical themes were state orders, which did not prevent them from being high-quality theatrical and television products, many of which are still happy to watch and refer to them. And yes, there is nothing significant new in Kravchuk’s work that we did not know before. At the same time, the beauty of The Last Tsar and the First Emperor is that it is not documentary in the truest sense of the word. The authors acted cleverly, combining the documentary genre (a historical excursion through interviews with historians and some famous people), play scenes and animation! And it turned out, I must say, original and very interesting. The visual part is just brilliant! Stylish computer graphics, spectacular color solutions in the shooting, costumes, hairstyles, scenery, extras ... in general, everything that created aesthetics on the screen.
Someone, probably, will say: and here in general the novelty of the last year “Empress”, which, in fact, should be discussed. The fact is that “Empresses” is a direct consequence and, if you will, a sequel to “The Last Tsar and the First Emperor”, inheriting almost everything from its predecessor: from visual stylistics to narrative methods. Moreover, it is more of a commercial continuation behind a successfully thrown touchstone than a dubious, but mandatory state order. Interviews of cultural figures and game episodes are also interspersed here, and animation is also present. And yes – in “Empresses” it is unlikely to be possible to learn history for the exam, if someone hoped for it (which in itself is strange). The view of Kravchuk comrades on the era is largely idealistic, one-sided, but I am not afraid to repeat: there is nothing harmful and pernicious in the plot of the film! And to watch this movie is primarily due to the beautiful visual, excellent musical accompaniment, confident performance of the actors (I even more liked not Peresild in the role of Elizabeth Petrovna, and Anna Ukolova, who performed Anna Ioannovna), qualitatively conveyed spirit and atmosphere of the era. And also as an addition to the series "Romanovs" (2013) and dozens of other films and books, because only in the totality of various works can a whole impression of history in general and its separate period in particular be created. Therefore, of course, who likes, and I was quite satisfied with the novelty of last year and no doubt put on the waiting list the next part of the nascent series – “Ekaterina the Great”. The main thing is not to overdo it with Olga Lerman in the role of Sofia Augusta Frederick of Anhalt-Zerbst, because entrusting her with this role is not a very successful idea, to put it mildly.
Women became the main trigger for the continuation of reforms of Peter I
This is a historical and documentary film, where the main role is given to palace coups. Here the fate of Catherine I (played by Utekhina), Anna Ioannovna (played by Ukolov) and Elizabeth Petrovna (played by Peresild) is shown. Many interesting facts about the life of the Empress. What is power? It is a force that relies on the military. The Preobrazhensky regiment always stood behind the chicks of Petrov's nest. The movie is very exciting. Director Andrei Kravchuk makes historical and documentary films about the history of Russia. And all of them are made in the genre of tragic drama. Director Kravchuk shot the film “Peter I: The Last Tsar and the First Emperor” in 2022. This series reminds me of the series “Russian Empire” (2000-2003). I was delighted with computer animation and historical facts. I also think the film is on school holidays. Teenagers 13-14 years old will be interested in watching this series from the series of director Kravchuk. Peresild has the lead. She plays Elizabeth I as a woman who loves balls and theaters.
Elizabeth I was childless. I was baffled by that fact. Peter III, whom Catherine II married, was the nephew of Elizabeth I. There are intrigues, there are beautiful dresses, there are powerful women, there are loyal men. The era of palace coups is the era of the formation of the new Russian Empire. The Russian Empire became a powerful state, where the Russian soldier defended and strengthened the country. Director Kravchuk called the film provocatively – “Empresses”. He said, “What are the women on the throne?” Will the common people worship a woman at the top of power? The answer is simple: “A strong army is a strong power.” Peter I was a great monarch. Only his beloved women can support his reforms. It shows the time when Russia could again become a boyar. I liked the idea of coup d’etat.
Women became the main trigger for the continuation of reforms of Peter I. St. Petersburg could become an ordinary city, and not the capital of the Russian Empire. Elizaveta Petrovna is an empress who has strengthened Russia’s military power, and who paid much attention to balls.
I liked Kravchuk's movie. There's chic, there's powerful special effects, there's intrigue. The dramatic line of the struggle for power is revealed 100%. Peter I was a great monarch.
Are our Empresses, or a one-sided view of history, so perfect?
I watched this masterpiece of cinematography in the cinema in order to fully feel the essence, but went with a skeptical attitude. It was influenced by more than one factor. First of all, the state had something to do with this film, which means that everyone will again show what kind of monarchs were good. Secondly, the film that came out almost exactly a year earlier is Peter 1. The last king and the first emperor. A kind of film in which there are moments when conjectures (refuted by many historians) are presented as fait accompli. Well, the third reason is extremely subjective - the actress who played Elizabeth Petrovna. Namely Julia Peresild.
Now in order.
As in the previous work of this director, we see only positive things about the heroines of the picture, namely about Catherine 1, Anna Ioanovna and Elizabeth Petrovna. In the USSR, they tried to demonize and devalue our monarchs as much as possible, they say that they only harmed and all the monarchy lived badly. In our time, all were good, and there were no problems, all were golden, kind, understanding, and all the words of praise that are in our mighty Russian language are used to describe our monarchs. Surprisingly, the empire collapsed in the end. One day we will find that middle ground. There is nothing critical that historical figures, even great ones, have made mistakes. They're human, too. But here, as usual, everything is too licked. And the shooting, no matter how tried to show that era, more reminded me of the series 2000-2010, than something near-documentary.
The visual is pleasant, but it still gives more to the art of modern films, rather than something historical. I understand that the authors are trying to combine informativeness with a beautiful picture. But it's not working very well so far. Adult viewers don’t care so much, and children are still not very interested (judging by the classes that were taken to this film on Sunday, to the same session that I was at).
Famous actors. This is an extremely personal attitude towards documentaries, but I find it difficult to take documentary with famous actors from feature films. Again, there was makeup for the aging of Peter 1, which looks like the one Alexandra Reve did in “Grandma of easy behavior.” It looks ridiculous and implausible. At the time, the Empresses looked more worthy.
Julia Peresild. Maybe it’s because there’s been a lot of her lately, maybe because I’ve seen movies with her that I didn’t like, or maybe she doesn’t have that aristocracy. Frankly, her Elizabeth turned out stupid and ridiculous. Especially when she goes to "take" her title of Empress and palace from Anna Leopoldovna and falls tangled in a skirt or slipping. As far as I remember, there is a version that she just didn’t keep up with them. But even the scene chosen by the directors could be played more decently, and not in the style of cheap melodrama, a la a simple girl rushes to her beloved and dramatically slips. But since, perhaps, it speaks in me a personal dislike of the actress, and not a sound look, it will not affect the assessment.
I understand that Anna Leopoldovna was not actually an empress, but simply a regent, and they did not intend to talk much about her, but it would be possible to show her future fate and her son. Who ended up spending the rest of his life in a fortress away from his parents. But they decided not to denigrate Elizabeth. Although even this action could be understood, she was afraid that she could be overthrown if she left the child at court.
It was also worth mentioning why Anna Ioanovna and Elizaveta Petrovna simply did not give birth to heirs. This question often arises when you begin to study this period of government. There are both official versions and conjectures, which, when voiced, can be denoted that “this is just a version”. After all, many things in history still stand on the fragile "most likely it was." You won’t be able to check it out.
Peter 3 is, of course, MDA. But we were not present at that time... So are the authors. It's hard to believe that Peter 3 was such a fool. It is known that at one point Elizabeth placed more hopes on his wife, whom she chose. Even more so for his son, whom he raised himself. But it is shown to be too stupid.
If you have read to this place, then you certainly expect the pluses, because there is no mark "negative". Well, I've already marked the visual. It is certainly good that our cinema is engaged in historical education of the population of different ages. Too bad the quality is not as high as we would like. But there is a good chance that some people who have seen this will begin to study it more deeply themselves and begin to understand more, especially about the inaccuracies of the film, but will understand more about the history of the country. Those who just want to discuss the film are likely to learn about the inaccuracies and details from opponents. And the rest of us will just raise our patriotic spirit by the fact that all the great monarchs were so perfect. Can they be blamed for that? Nope. Patriotism in all ages was often fundamental in the mood of the people and great discoveries and deeds.
Never study history from just one source. One will tell you how bad everyone is, the other how good everyone is. And so reading sources 10-20 picture will be more real.
Thank you very much.
Empress is another meaningless costume comic with, to put it mildly, a strange look at the history of the country.
This is Andrei Kravchuk’s fifth attempt to work with Russian history. The first was monarchically one-sided, but globally good apologetics about Kolchak "Admiral". The second is a rather stupid polytagita about Prince Vladimir, the same one with the pretentious Kozlovsky and naked Khodchenkova. Then there is the “Union of Salvation”, comments about which it is unnecessary to give, and “Peter the First” – an even more passable film with strange animations inside rich shots from the Peter and Paul Fortress.
Now the turn has reached the era of palace coups. The whole framework of history is built through the paradigm that "Tsar Peter built a young empire, and the three empresses decorated this house in a purely feminine way." In the role of three state designers - Catherine I, Anna Ioannovna and Elizaveta Petrovna (played by the main actress of the country Julia Peresild).
The film is broken by animated pieces drawn in an even more wild style than in the epic of Peter, and sudden documentary inserts from experts on this historical period. Among the connoisseurs in some surprising way is, for example, Irina Viner, who talks about how to properly educate girls so that they become as strong as the future Empress Elizabeth.
For all the beauty of the filming, and especially for them overlapped the Winter Palace, Smolny, Catherine Palace in Tsarskoye Selo, the picture looks staged and resembles historical docks from 2009, massively included in the grid of the First channel. Somewhere in the middle of the film, deliberately caricatured images of those who the director does not particularly like begin to fuss.
For some reason, Anna Leopoldovna is completely excluded from the host of empresses. Almost all the intriguers of the era - from Menshikov and Dolgorukov to Osterman and Razumovsky - are shown only with stupid tools. Peter III is an idiot, even bigger than Peter II. Thrown to the dustbin of history line of the son of Peter I Alexei, Ivan VI Antonovich. Frederick II, Anton Ulrich and Louis XV are generally shown as gray, faded rulers who had little influence on the course of world history in comparison with the protagonists from the young empire of Peter.
How much you can argue about the semantic content of the film, where all three (quite controversial!) Empresses are shown almost as saints (I confess that I first saw such a positive image of the same Anna Ioannovna), but the question remains, and for whom is it all?
For the exam takers? So missed half of the most important facts, and information about the first furnaces of Donbass is unlikely to help the exam.
For school children and teachers? So they are already shown similar, albeit made worse, films. The difference in this age will not be noticed.
For just those interested in history? So too basic level, usually this is how you need level.
For someone who accidentally went to a movie? So it will not go, and if it goes, it will come out after the first boring remark of the director of the Tsarskoye Selo.
As a result, Empresses got lost in the genre, in the meanings they carry, and in their task. What it is, for whom and why it is not clear even after the credits. If the goal was simply to tell about an important era in the history of the country, then why try to build everything through a personal drama (Peresild, by the way, well done, she really tries to play Elizabeth). And if the goal was still to make a film product, then why not cut out the entire boring part of the film, which is a professor's voice reads Khabensky?
It ended up being neither. Although according to the unjustly developed historiographical tradition, these words are usually reduced to the entire era of Palace coups.
It is only for the sake of the exam that you can see.
They decided to go with their son spontaneously, walking on vacation. I did not look at the abstract and did not know that the film is not fiction, but a documentary with interspersed acting and animation. But the disadvantage is not this, but a rare dullness. This is actually a lecture, albeit voiced by the beautiful voice of Khabensky and colored with scenes with actors.
Just to revive the dry lines of the textbook and to lay in the minds of teenagers the order of the reign of all these ladies, in principle, will go.
And this is not worth watching, the film is frankly boring and protracted. And it is not delayed by something useful and interesting, unfortunately.
For nonsense, for episodes of dress fitting, a long beating of various faces pulled out of bed in underpants, for a sleeping actor of the theater and so on took a lot of screen time. Why, why, cramming historical anecdotes into a seemingly claimed documentary tape is stupid.
It would be better if more state affairs were placed in this timekeeping, a story about military campaigns, political successes / failures, landmark events of each government, etc.
The comments of experts for the most part do not give anything to understand these historical personalities, nor to enrich the memory with some useful facts, they are just suddenly interrupting the narrative with valued general judgments about the strength of the individual, leadership, etc.
The actress with facelifts and punctured cheekbones for the depiction of historical persons do not need to take, it was just unpleasant to look at the adult Elizabeth. Peter III should not be portrayed as a perfect idiot, as in most domestic films, unfortunately. He was not so insane, otherwise, despite his intelligent wife, Elizabeth would not have left him as heir to the throne. Catherine I and her little daughters liked, Anna Ioannovna also seemed convincing.
The plus of this film is that it allows you to plunge into the atmosphere of palace coups and in a long-gone era, on which little is filmed, except that the series Druzhinina can be remembered. The minus is in the protracted nature, in the forced pulling of the viewer out of this atmosphere due to the cuts of inconsequential comments of experts, in the outright distortions in the direction of the pluses of each board, without mentioning the failures and failures, in the small number of mentioned historical events and facts to the detriment of entertainment, which still failed.
It feels like they were going to make a feature film, then changed their minds and recruited experts for a documentary, then changed their minds again and decided to give a lecture, but at the same time spat on the factuality and reliability, and then realized that neither of them came out, and mixed up in the hope that someone would come in and so. As a result, this is not a documentary, nor a feature film, nor a lecture, and it is unclear what target audience this miracle is designed for.