Interesting Archival Footage Grafted onto Bad History . This production is misleadingly named.  Far from being a biography of Grand Duchess Anastasia, it is really the story of how the deaths of her family at the hands of Russian revolutionaries in 1918 spawned one of the 20th century's enduring mysteries -- a mystery which was given a unique lease on life when, among the myriad male and female claimants to be survivors of the imperial family, one woman began to pick up supporters in the 1920's among at least some people who had had contact with the original family.    I do not fault this production for failing to be a real biography.  After all, how much of a biography can one write on a 17-year-old girl whose life was largely one of sheltered privilege?  However, I do fault this production for being a badly-flawed recounting of history.  And I am not talking about the interminable debate that still rages in the arcane world of Romanov history buffs about whether Anna Anderson was really Anastasia.    This work's take on the life of Anastasia paints a very tilted picture both of the world of the Romanovs, their support among their subjects, and their reputation among today's Russians.    First, life in the inner sanctum of Nicholas's family was not the halcyon existence this production claims.  Certainly the family had great wealth and huge staff at its disposal.  But neither Nicholas nor Alexandra were well-suited to their roles, and they lived under the strain of it.  They were increasingly isolated from the extended Romanov clan, who shared the dawning awareness of the Russian people that the monarchy was in serious trouble.  While these forces might not have touched Anastasia directly, she was certainly touched by her brother's hemophilia and her mother's response of sinking into frail health, chronic emotional distress, and a religious mysticism that almost bordered on hysteria at times.    Secondly, this film's portrayal of the counter-revolutionary White Army as determined to save their beloved tsar from captivity is just plain wrong.  While the Whites wanted to unseat the Bolshevik revolution, there was virtually no support for a Romanov restoration among the leadership of the White Army.  Nor are there any known attempts by the counter-revolutionary forces to rescue their former imperial family.  In fact, one senior White military leader once remarked, "having seen the monarchy at close quarters, I have no desire to see its return."    And thirdly, while there is a gradual rehabilitation of the last Romanov's reputation underway in Russia today, the notion that the murdered Romanovs are saints is not nearly the widespread sentiment that this production claims.  In fact, the great masses of modern Russians are far more interested in making their new democracy work than in figuring out how to get the sainted Romanovs back on a throne.    I do not know whether these flaws arise from some agenda to rehabilitate the Romanovs, whether they arise from sloppy research that relied too much on the fawning pseudo-history that plagues serious study of the Russian monarchy's fading years, or whether this production did not have access to newly-opened archives.  But -- whatever the reason(s) -- it does a disservice to the study of history by claiming to be history when it is, in fact, closer to a grocery-store romance novel
Output: NEG