(no subject)
Nov. 25th, 2017 10:40 pmLast night ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
genarti and I watched the 1956 Anastasia movie with Yul Brynner and Ingrid Bergman, and I find myself kind of fascinated by it.
The thing about watching the 1956 film is that you can definitely see how they took the bones of that movie -- sad amnesiac is picked up by con artist, manages to convince the Dowager Empress of Russia that she's Anastasia Romanov, but in the end disappears with the con artist rather than claiming her wealth and station -- and filled them out with sparkles and romance and zombie Rasputin and got a Bizarre Children's Classic, the 90s Anastasia on which I grew up and which I will always love.
But, I mean, there's a lot of bones to fill out, because the 1956 Anastasia is nothing but questions all the way down, which makes it a WILDLY DIFFERENT film.
When the movie begins, we're told that Anna has been in an institution claiming that she's the long-lost Romanov, but at the time of the film's beginning she has no idea who she is and no interest in anything but getting away from the people demanding things of her that she can't explain. Eventually she becomes -- maybe -- convinced that she really is Anastasia, but is that really all that surprising when she has people around her telling her that she's Anastasia and pouring constructed memories into her ears every day?
Meanwhile, Yul Brynner -- his character's name is General Bounine and I keep wanting to call him Dmitri so we'll just stick with Yul Brynner -- anyway, Yul Brynner's motivations as he alternately bullies and coaxes Anna through the role of Anastasia are equally ambiguous. Is it true that he just wants the money? Or does he get his kicks from puppeteering people and watching the fallout? Is this all an elaborate scheme to get revenge on a royal family for imagined slights from long ago? FEELINGS: DOES HE HAVE THEM. WHO KNOWS. Certainly not this movie, which amazingly refrains from showing any explicitly romantic scenes at all between these two extremely attractive people playing out this intense and unhealthy dynamic. The dance scenes are drills, and exhausting; every conversation is some degree of mind game. The closest we get is drunken Anna, giggling and shouting out to Yul Brynner from her bedroom: "It must be very dreary in your room! Everyone in mine is having a wonderful time!"
And then, of course, there's Helen Hayes as the Dowager Empress: a woman who has lost her whole family, and is presented a chance to have a portion of it back, in a way that she absolutely can't trust. There's a really good hug between Anna and the Dowager Empress and it hurts a whole lot: "Oh, please, if it should not be you, don't ever tell me!"
( I have a lot of feelings about the very strange end of this very strange movie )
Anyway I am also making plans to see Anastasia on Broadway as soon as humanly possible because now I really feel like I need to hit the trifecta.
genarti and I watched the 1956 Anastasia movie with Yul Brynner and Ingrid Bergman, and I find myself kind of fascinated by it. The thing about watching the 1956 film is that you can definitely see how they took the bones of that movie -- sad amnesiac is picked up by con artist, manages to convince the Dowager Empress of Russia that she's Anastasia Romanov, but in the end disappears with the con artist rather than claiming her wealth and station -- and filled them out with sparkles and romance and zombie Rasputin and got a Bizarre Children's Classic, the 90s Anastasia on which I grew up and which I will always love.
But, I mean, there's a lot of bones to fill out, because the 1956 Anastasia is nothing but questions all the way down, which makes it a WILDLY DIFFERENT film.
When the movie begins, we're told that Anna has been in an institution claiming that she's the long-lost Romanov, but at the time of the film's beginning she has no idea who she is and no interest in anything but getting away from the people demanding things of her that she can't explain. Eventually she becomes -- maybe -- convinced that she really is Anastasia, but is that really all that surprising when she has people around her telling her that she's Anastasia and pouring constructed memories into her ears every day?
Meanwhile, Yul Brynner -- his character's name is General Bounine and I keep wanting to call him Dmitri so we'll just stick with Yul Brynner -- anyway, Yul Brynner's motivations as he alternately bullies and coaxes Anna through the role of Anastasia are equally ambiguous. Is it true that he just wants the money? Or does he get his kicks from puppeteering people and watching the fallout? Is this all an elaborate scheme to get revenge on a royal family for imagined slights from long ago? FEELINGS: DOES HE HAVE THEM. WHO KNOWS. Certainly not this movie, which amazingly refrains from showing any explicitly romantic scenes at all between these two extremely attractive people playing out this intense and unhealthy dynamic. The dance scenes are drills, and exhausting; every conversation is some degree of mind game. The closest we get is drunken Anna, giggling and shouting out to Yul Brynner from her bedroom: "It must be very dreary in your room! Everyone in mine is having a wonderful time!"
And then, of course, there's Helen Hayes as the Dowager Empress: a woman who has lost her whole family, and is presented a chance to have a portion of it back, in a way that she absolutely can't trust. There's a really good hug between Anna and the Dowager Empress and it hurts a whole lot: "Oh, please, if it should not be you, don't ever tell me!"
( I have a lot of feelings about the very strange end of this very strange movie )
Anyway I am also making plans to see Anastasia on Broadway as soon as humanly possible because now I really feel like I need to hit the trifecta.
