Rasputin and the Empress (1932) User Reviews (39)

Great as dramatic history but as for Russian history...

[AlsExGal · 7/10 · 7 August 2010]

...forget about it. This film is completely inaccurate in its portrayal of actual events in Russian history. As for the nature and character of the historical figures involved, the three Barrymores give good renditions. There is Ethel Barrymore looking every inch the empress and giving a convincing portrayal of a woman concerned for the welfare of her very ill son - and I would expect that. What I didn't expect is how weird it would be to watch a film in which John Barrymore is the shining hero and Lionel Barrymore is a truly diabolical villain, and each are spectacularly convincing in their portrayals. Lionel is really the center of attention here as he plays the evil Rasputin whose ability to sidestep assassination attempts is legendary, and here a few logical explanations are given to some of his alleged abilities. However, none can explain what happened at the end of his life - how he was poisoned, bludgeoned, shot, and finally thrown into an icy river and still managed to cling to life for awhile.

Although Tsar Nicholas is accurately portrayed as a rather weak willed man and the Romanov marriage is also accurately portrayed as one of the few royal arranged marriages that also turned out to be a love match, there is a mischaracterization of the Tsar as being progressive and wanting a Duma only to have Rasputin defeat that plan. In fact, Nicholas was autocratic in his outlook and distrusted any attempt to give the people more say in their government. This sets up one of the great ironic struggles in the film - that of aristocrat Prince Paul Chegodieff (John Barrymore) wanting more for the peasants in the way of both bread and democracy, and that of peasant mystic Rasputin (Lionel Barrymore) saying that it was God's will that the peasants were poor and powerless. Paul wants to save Russia, Rasputin wants to rule it.

Another piece of fiction shown in the movie for dramatic measure are the public proclamations about the illness of Tsaravich Alexai, the heir to the Russian throne. In fact one of the things that turned the Russian people against the royal family - besides the fact that they were starving during WWI - was that the people assumed that Rasputin's hold over the empress was because they were lovers. The Romanovs did not want it to be known that the only son in the family and heir to the throne had a serious disease - in this case hemophilia - that kept him in very delicate health and would likely lead to a greatly shortened lifespan. They felt it would leave them vulnerable to the overthrowing of their rule. Ironically hiding the truth and leaving Rasputin's relationship to the empress unexplained also led to exactly that.

Watch this one for the high production values and compelling performances by the members of Hollywood's royal family during its golden age, but as for a Russian history lesson, look elsewhere.

Don't Watch This for Historical Accuracy

[jtyroler · 6/10 · 18 February 2008]

Rasputin and the Empress shouldn't be used as a lesson of pre-Soviet Russia. Names have been changed (and that didn't prevent MGM from law suits) and a lot of the information we now know about this period of Russian history - was not known in 1932.

As other people have commented about this being the only film that Ethel, John, and Lionel Barrymore appeared together, this movie doesn't show why the Barrymores have the reputation that they have. John Barrymore's career started going downhill after the introduction of sound. Lionel Barrymore, wearing one of the phoniest fake beards, tries to capture the charisma and sense of control that Rasputin had over Czarina Alexandra and the Czarevitch. Ethel Barrymore gives an understated performance - too understated at times. When her only son seems to be close to possible death, she doesn't seem all that bothered.

C. Henry Gordon is a great Grand Duke Igor, Ralph Morgan is a convincing Czar Nicholas II, but they don't appear that frequently. Don't expect anyone to speak with a Russian accent or even attempting and accent.

Rasputin is one of the most interesting people in the world during the early 20th Century. He was also one of the most enigmatic and contradictory. A holy man who was accused of raping a nun, excessive drinking, and being power hungry. Barrymore's portrayal of Rasputin plays this up, plus making claims that he will be Russia. He seems almost like Charles Manson at times in the way he can make someone, especially the Czarevitch, behave like they are totally different people compared to the way they acted before meeting Rasputin.

It is best to watch this movie as just that - a fictional representation of various accounts of what happened in the royal court of Russia in its final days. The writers included Charles MacArthur, Ben Hecht, Robert Sherwood, Mercedes de Acosta, and Lenore Coffee - some of the best writers of the period.

It's worth a view - don't expect historical accuracy, but it is an interesting film that tries to show a much different world than what Americans would have known.

Lionel Barrymore must have had a lot of fun making this one!

[planktonrules · 8/10 · 28 January 2020]

"Rasputin and the Empress" has the distinction of being the only movie that features siblings John, Ethel and Lionel Barrymore. However, of the three, Lionel is DEFINITELY the star and he's given ample opportunity to act and overact...and it's all very enjoyable to watch. His version of Rasputin certainly is NOT subtle.

Now there is a problem with making a film about Rasputin and that is there is a lot of lore involved. Many of the supposed 'facts' are obvious exaggerations....with the man having weird mystical powers and his death is clearly NOT realistically portrayed in history books. Fortunately, MGM chooses to make Rasputin evil but 100% human and without laser shooting out of his eyes!

The story begins in 1905, which is problematic since the film ends in mid-1918 with the murder of the Czar and his family. I say problematic because the children in the story never age! Additionally, although Rasputin had a personal relationship with the Czar and his family for about a decade, here in the film is looks like only a few months or perhaps a year. The fact is that the story wasn't intended as a history lesson and MGM made a few artistic changes here and there...something which probably made the film more enjoyable for most audience members.

As far as portraying this evil monk goes, Lionel Barrymore imbued him an amazing over-the-top personality and humanized him. Humanized because the tricks he does in the film are simply tricks--such as hypnotism and spying on folks in order to 'magically' know their secrets. It's all very enjoyable to watch and never is dull.

As for John, he has a relatively meaty role but is far, far more subdued. You do see him emote strongly during the murder sequence (one that varies tremendously with most accepted versions)....but otherwise he plays his role very straight.

Ethel, on the other hand, has a rather normal and even somewhat bland role in the movie. Simply put, any decent actress could have done her part.

So is it any good? Exceedingly so, yes. The story is never dull, is very big and exciting. And, even though they use a lot of stock footage, its inclusion isn't at all a detriment to the movie. Well worth seeing and quite enjoyable.

The Man, the Myth...

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 14 January 2017]

A prince plots to kill the "mad monk" Rasputin for the good of the czar, the czarina and Russia.

In something of a minor epic, this film tells of the rise and fall of Rasputin, the "mad monk". How much is true and how much is legend is open to debate, but all the classic parts of the story are told here. If you are vaguely familiar with the story of Rasputin, this film should feel like you've seen it before (in a good way).

Everything about the film is quite good, from the acting to the costumes and beyond. This is, of course, a showcase for the Barrymore family, and it really does show how much they each contributed to the acting greatness of American cinema.

Three Barrymore's

[Michael_Elliott · 25 February 2008]

Rasputin and the Empress (1932)

*** (out of 4)

Lionel, John and Ethel Barrymore star in this film, which was the only one that all three legends appeared in together. After her son is near death, Czarina Alexandria (Ethel) lets the monk Rasputin (Lionel) pray with her son who eventually heals and the monk gives credit to God. Saving her son, the monk soon finds himself gaining power inside the government but this doesn't sit well with Prince Chegodieff (John) who will stop at nothing to prove the monk is mad. Apparently MGM was sued due to how inaccurate the story is here so if you want a history lesson you should go read a book but if you want to see all three Barrymore's together then this is the only film out there that will suit you. The film should have been a lot better than it is but the thing drags at several points and I'm sure fifteen or so minutes could have been trimmed from the 123-minute running time, although apparently the film ran longer when originally released. The performances aren't what you'd expect but it's certainly fun seeing the three Barrymore's working together. Lionel actually goes way over the top, which is something you'd expect from John but he actually manages to be quite calm and cool throughout the film. John certainly gives the best performance but it's Lionel who steals the film with his fake beard and over the top antics. Ethel is good in her role as is the supporting work from Ralph Morgan. The costumes and set design are wonderful and I really enjoyed the made up ending, which contains some pretty strong violence.

Triple Play

[Better_Sith_Than_Sorry · 7/10 · 16 February 2019]

Plot in a Nutshell: Russian Prince Chegodieff (John Barrymore) tries to stop the evil Rasputin (Lionel Barrymore) from exerting his influence over Czarina Alexandra (Ethel Barrymore).

Why I rated it a '7': That's a lot of Barrymore! Admittedly, that fact alone doesn't make it a 7, but seeing the three accomplished siblings together here (for the only time in celluloid history) IS worth a few extra points. This is an interesting tale, showing how an unknown/outsider was able to insert himself into the lives of the Russian royal family and influence them in ways one wouldn't think possible. I will say that the film goes out of its way to denigrate Rasputin. I don't think he needed any help, really, but in addition to his actual crimes, he is shown here to be a war-monger, royal rapist and freedom-hating enemy of the peasants. Lol that's quite a despicable guy! Some reviewers have complained that "Rasputin" is not always true to history (in some ways, it's not), but what this tells me is that Hollywood apparently has been making historically inaccurate films for perhaps longer than anyone thought. If you can forgive it that, it's otherwise pretty entertaining.

Best line: "You know, people with visions like yours, my dear father, are sometimes rather unlucky. There was a general, not long ago, who shot himself in the back. No one could understand quite how he did it!"

Would I watch again (Y/N)?: Yes.

Chiefly of interest because it's the only film that Ethel, John and Lionel Barrymore made together

[llltdesq · 6/10 · 8 November 2000]

This is a reasonably decent movie, well acted (particularly by Lionel, who practically chews the scenery as Rasputin) and the sets and costumes are fairly nice. But the main selling point is that this is the only time the three Barrymores -Ethel, John and Lionel did a movie together. It's a good movie but could have been much better.

The man who wouldn't die

[richard-1787 · 7/10 · 16 January 2020]

You don't have to be a Bolshevik to find that this movie gives an historically unjustified positive view of the Romanov family in the last days of the Russian Empire. I suppose that, in 1932 when this was filmed, MGM wanted to make Communists, who were gaining popularity in Depression-era America, look bad. And that this movie does. But turning Nicholas and Alexandra into intelligent and sympathetic characters wasn't really necessary.

What I found most impressive in this movie was Lionel Barrymore's incarnation of Rasputin. Yes, it's very dramatic, and sometimes melodramatic. But so, evidently, was Rasputin. Barrymore presents him as a thoroughly repulsive creature completely devoid of morals, sometimes to the point of turning your stomach. The scene where he makes advances at one of the young daughters of the imperial couple is so well played that it's very hard to watch: you feel a terrible sense of revulsion at the suggestion of what Rasputin is clearly thinking about doing.

The other scene that impressed me was the last one between Rasputin and the Russian noble played by John Barrymore. The latter definitely goes too far near the end, but Lionel B. is magnificent as the man who would not die.

For me, the movie should have ended with that scene, or very shortly afterward. The rest of the movie is devoted to the final days of the imperial family. It is standard-fare bathetic, meant to evoke a lot of tears, and really takes the movie away from its central core, the power of Rasputin over that family and the government.

MGM clearly spared no expense on this movie. It sometimes goes off the track on "production numbers." But it is certainly worth seeing for Lionel Barrymore's Rasputin.

A powerful tale of tragedy

[herzogvon · 9/10 · 10 March 2008]

By now, everyone - but everyone - has commented on what bad history this movie is. Fine, I won't argue the point. But, what about it as drama? In my opinion, this is one of the most powerful tales of tragedy of it's time. ( This is particularly noteworthy given MGM's later penchant for frivolousness. ) Part of it has do do with the sincerity and conviction of the story. [ Alhough Charles MacArtur and others are given credit for the screenplay, I believe the original story - I have read a copy of the book - was written by a Russian émigré who fled the revolution. Unfortunately, I am presently unable to locate my copy. ] Nonetheless, this would go a long way towards explaining the movie's passion.

As for the acting; it features an outstanding cast, including the three Barrymores, as well as an assemblage of first rate supporting actors of the time. ( Anyone notice Edwarld Arnold as Dr. Remezov? ) Of course, much of it seems dated by today's standards. ( This was 1932, after all. ) Keep in mind that this is high melodrama. In that context, Lionel Barrymore exudes pure evil as the scheming, mad monk. He also brings out the crudity and vulgarity of the man, which generally jibes with historical accounts. Just try not to dwell on the fake beard.

John is fine and properly earnest as Prince Chegodieff, although his performance does seem a bit old-fashioned next to Lionel's. He really lets it all hang out in the murder scene, however. Ethel seems a trifle stiff, but Ralph Morgan is just right as Nicholas. In fact, sincerity and seriousness of purpose seem to be the hallmarks of the entire ensemble. And through it all, there is this sense of tragic inevitability; of events that, once set in motion, cannot be reversed.

One other thing that warrants a mention is the music. The Russian Orthodox liturgical music used in the celebratory scene near the beginning is moving and powerful. It could well put one in mind of the the wedding scene in Michael Cimino's "The Deer Hunter" ( 1978 ). Later, there is a medley of martial music, accompanied by historical footage, as Russia mobilizes for The Great War. Here we hear "God Save the Tsar", a tune which Mikhail Glinka featured in his opera, "A Life for the Tsar", but which was routinely banned during Soviet performances. All in all, exciting stuff.

This is a movie well worth watching, historical accuracy notwithstanding.

The Three Bs

[marcslope · 6/10 · 9 August 2010]

The only film featuring all three Barrymores preserves an acting style that was once considered top-line and now looks rather over-emphatic. Certainly Lionel is the biggest ham, looking like Alec Guinness in "Oliver Twist" and rolling his eyes, laughing maniacally, and all but twirling his cape as the contemptible, going-mad Rasputin. By contrast, Ethel is stately as the Empress Alexandra, but also rather uninteresting, mainly emphasizing womanly dignity and reserve, as she so often did. Often she and Diana Wynyard seem to be in a contest to see who can employ a more highfalutin pronunciation style. So it falls to John to give the best performance: He's comparatively naturalistic and understated, and seems most comfortable in front of a camera. The director, Richard Boleslawski, goes in for needlessly arty compositions and drags out the playing time, and Herbert Stothart, the composer, seems the hardest worker: so much Russian-cliché music, and so loud. Charles MacArthur's screenplay is literate but wordy and inaccurate (and resulted in an expensive lawsuit against MGM). But as a distillation of the Barrymore acting style in miniature, it's a valuable artifact, and pretty entertaining on its own terms.

The Malevolent Monk

[bkoganbing · 5/10 · 2 February 2008]

In Margot Peters excellent book The House of Barrymore she characterized what MGM had to deal with in the only time the three Barrymore siblings were in a film together, John on drink, Lionel on drugs, and Ethel on her high horse. More truth than humor there.

John's drinking and self destruction from same are well known. Lionel was on all kinds of pain killing medication which Louis B. Mayer kept him supplied with in return for being the fifth column of management whenever his contract players started getting ideas. For Ethel however this was her first venture into sound films and she was one who took the title of First Lady of the American Theater quite seriously with all the royal prerogatives of same.

Somehow this retelling of the last days of the Romanovs did get made and in it Lionel Barrymore who had the most colorful part of the film, takes the acting honors. His Rasputin, the malevolent monk who held sway over the Tsar and Tsarina because of his ability to control the symptoms of the Tsaretch's hemophilia is a classic study in evil. Ethel is properly regal and John is the noble prince who eventually does something about the curse over the Romanovs, though too late.

Rasputin was bad enough in history though here the writers went a bit overboard. There's no accusation against him of having designs on the royal princesses, yet we see Lionel casting a lascivious eye on the Princess Anastasia.

Though the name was changed for the film, the real assassin of Rasputin, Prince Felix Yousapov did sue MGM and collect a bundle from them. Personally I think he robbed the lion studio because if anything John Barrymore's portrayal was far more noble than Yousapov was in real life. To add insult to injury though another guy with the name of Chegodieff which was John's name in the film also sued MGM and claimed he was defamed and won.

The biggest historical error I find though was the fact that Rasputin was urging Tsar Nicholas to enter World War I. In fact the opposite was the case. Speaking of the Tsar, he's played here as the nebbish he was in real life by Ralph Morgan.

For reasons I don't understand the film did not end with Rasputin's demise. Dramatically speaking it should have. But the film continued on until the execution of the royal family by the Bolsheviks. No proper dramatic foundation was laid for that event. There is some mention of revolution in the air, but nothing in the story suggests what will take place.

Rasputin and the Empress is bad history and mediocre drama. But it is a chance to see the Barrymore siblings all in the same film and shouldn't be missed for that.

The great Barrymores portray a fascinating piece of history

[SimonJack · 9/10 · 3 December 2015]

"Rasputin and the Empress" belongs in any good collection of movies for three reasons. First, it is the only movie with all three siblings of the great stage and screen family of Barrymore. Second, it is a reasonable portrayal, with facts and fiction, of the last years of the Russian czars and the infamous Rasputin. And, third, the film production is excellent. The acting by the entire cast is first rate. The sets capture the splendor of the place and the turmoil of the time. The filming is superb under Polish-born director Richard Boleslawski (as Boleslavsky) who studied at the Moscow Art Theater. And the plot and screenplay tell an interesting and bizarre story.

Ethel Barrymore plays the Czarina Alexandra, wife of Czar Nicholas II, ruler of Russia. John Barrymore plays a fictitious character, Prince Chegodleff. His role is based on the real Prince Felix Yusupov. Lionel Barrymore has the largest role. He plays the diabolical Grigori Rasputin, the "mad monk" who mesmerized the Romanov family their last three years. His influence may have altered the history of Russia. It doubtless contributed to the end of the Romanov rule after three centuries. The detailed history of the time and events covered by this film makes fascinating reading.

This movie was made just 14 years after the execution of the Czar and his family by the Bolsheviks in July of 1918. The film follows closely the events of the Romanovs and Rasputin from 1914 to1918. It begins with the arrival of Rasputin as a healer of the young Alexei, who was a hemophiliac. Rasputin wasn't a religious monk, but had a reputation as a mystical faith healer. After Alexei's recovery, Rasputin's influence with the royal family grew, especially through the Czarina. In time, his power was so great that some considered him the ruler of Russia. The film captures this situation very well.

It also shows the royal family's faithful adherence to the Orthodox Church. In Hollywood fashion, and of necessity for the film's length and subject matter, much of the earliest years of the reign of Nicholas II is condensed into no more than some general references about the past. Nicholas was a timid man and a weak ruler with no stomach for governance. After he ascended the throne in 1896, he and Alexandra enjoyed a period of favor with the populace. They were well liked as rulers. But, the czar's poor skills of leadership in time led to many problems. He soon lost face with the people. And, when Rasputin came on the scene, public distrust further fanned the flames of rebellion.

Besides the Barrymores, the film has a number of other fine actors. Ralph Morgan plays the weak Czar Nicholas perfectly. Diana Wynyard is superb as Natasha whose character was based on Irina Yusupov. Edward Arnold plays Doctor Remezov. C. Henry Gordon is the Grand Duke Igor. And Tad Alexander is The Czarevitch. Again, this is a fine film on all accounts.

In 1917, there were 65 members in the Romanov dynasty. The Bolshevik's killed 18 of them and the 47 remaining either fled Russia or were exiled. Most went to Western Europe. A number of movies have been made about pretenders to the Romanov line. Sometimes those ruses were for prestige, but more often they were efforts to lay claim to some of the jewels of Russia.

In 1934, Princess Irina Alexandrovna sued MGM in London over this film. She was a niece of Czar Nicholas, and the wife of Prince Felix Yusupov, who is the person who killed Rasputin. Earlier, MGM made some changes and deleted some scenes. But the princess still took issue with the fictitious character that John Barrymore plays. She also said that Rasputin didn't urge the Czar to go to war with Germany. Another matter of contention was the death of Rasputin. The film shows the gathering at the Molka Palace, which took place. But in the end it shows Barrymore's character dragging Rasputin's body to the river and pushing him under the ice. In the February 28, 1934, court case in London Prince Yusupov testified on the killing. "When Rasputin disclosed what he was doing for Germany, I determined that he must die in the interests of Russia. I secured poison from a doctor, and accompanied Rasputin to the cellar, where I gave him poisoned cakes and wine, and shot him. He revived, whereupon another man thrice shot him, but not fatally. I then battered him to death with a loaded stick. Three friends removed the body and threw it in the river. I was arrested next morning and the Tsar banished me." Other evidence in time found that the men who disposed of Rasputin's body threw him from a bridge into the river. This trial account, under a dateline London, appeared in the Brisbane, Australia Courier-Mail newspaper of March 2, 1934, page 15. Princess Yusupov won some damages for libel in England, and MGM settled with her out of court in the U.S. That apparently led to the standard disclaimer now used for most films based on fiction: "All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental."

Several reviewers have said this film is very bad history. Perhaps some are reading too much into it. The film covers less than four years in time, and mostly focuses on the Romanov family and Rasputin. A lot about the previous years is condensed in a couple of general observations, as noted above. But for the usual Hollywood license in writing for screenplay dialog, this film portrays well the events and subjects it encompasses.

A Good Representation of Movie Making at That Time

[kenbarr-ny · 6/10 · 15 May 2011]

As previously noted in other reviews, this movie has plenty of historical errors (Nicholas II wanted a Duma, Rasputin favored Russia's entry into World War I, the Tsarevich's family nickname and on and on). As Robert Wuhl says, remember that movies are often "based on a true story." However, the value of the film is that is a good example of acting, directing and writing in the 1930s. The presence of the three Barrymores also makes this film interesting. Given the back story of how this movie was made, we also see the power of the studio executives, such as Irving Thalberg, had in how stories were constructed. The story is contrived, so don't use this movie as a factual representation of the events of the period. Watch it instead for the acting of the Barrymores, who were far more familiar to stage audiences than cinema's.

Condensed History

[gjampol · 5/10 · 15 November 2007]

This could have been a true classic. However, it strays far from actual events and abridges the period between the outbreak of the Great War and the killing of the royal family.

The three Barrymores -- Lionel, Ethel and John -- are fine as Rasputin, the Empress and Prince Paul, a fictional character who assassinates Rasputin (the real assassin was Prince Feliks Yusupov, who was distressed by the damage that Rasputin was doing to the public image of the royal family).

The film correctly shows how Rasputin was interfering with the government and the execution of the Great War. But we don't actually see any sign of the February and October revolutions and the abdication of the czar. In the movie, the royal family is taken by train to a house where they are shot by the Bolsheviks. All of these events happen so suddenly in the film that a casual viewer would lose sense of the chronology.

Moreover, the direction is poor and many scenes last too long, making the movie drag.

Good film but...

[Shannon-32 · 25 September 1999]

The only film with all three Barrymores together and it's a good film, however, the direction is very poorly done, especially the ending scene.

Other than that, Lionel Barrymore portrays an excellent Rasputin and Ethel Barrymore is wonderful as the Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna. John Barrymore is great as Prince Paul, the assassin of Rasputin (in real life, it was Prince Yussupov who assassinated Rasputin).

This is a good film, but if you want a better interpretation of Rasputin's "reign," rent the 1996 HBO version with Alan Rickman or the 1971 movie, "Nicholas and Alexandra."

Worth a watch! Lionel makes it!

[kellisean-24239 · 7/10 · 6 April 2020]

All three Barrymores appear here but Lionel would be the one to stand out the most. Pure evil but human the way he hypnotizes here and spies and uses his expressions and nuances he was so good out! Very dramatic but over the top works here! And Lionel has always had the most amazing piercing eyes! John may of had the 'Profile' but Lionel had the eyes. You can see this in many of his films all the way to the Dr. Gillespie years! Amazing versatile actor! He was my favorite Barrymore and one of best actors ever!

Ethel and John didn't seem to have a lot to do here except look good. There was some comments John should of played Rasputin but that would not of worked. Lionel would of hated a romantic Prince role. It amazed me that Lionel would be considered second best to John and Lionel in the early years from what I read. I totally disagree! They were all equally as talented in their own right. I often felt bad for Lionel though. Much of his life read like a Greek tragedy. But it only made him work harder and proved he could hold his own! He seemed to make the most out of his personal and professional setbacks. I was amused to find a younger thinner Edward Arnold as the Doctor. I almost didn't recognize him here. He was very good as was most of the versatile cast.

Probably my fav part is watching the brutal scene between Lionel and John at the end. Lionel is very physical here. I think they had a ball filming this! Potter fans who only see him as an old man in a wheelchair should see this! As well as some of his Silents! This is not Lionel's best role and neither was Potter (he made over 75 films in the talking era plus MANY Silents) but this is worth a watch!

But don't watch this for historical accuracy of events. More for entertainment mostly.

Lionel, John and Ethel - All Together!

[Pat-54 · 6/10 · 8 January 1999]

The only film that all three Barrymores appeared in together. Rather dated and sometimes laughable, especially Ethel's constant "double-takes" whenever a dramatic moment occurs. But it's still worth watching.

When we were growing up, our parents always warned us . . .

[pixrox1 · 7/10 · 5 May 2021]

. . . "Don't be like the Russians, and take stupid pills!" RASPUTIN AND THE EMPRESS illustrates the Truth behind this cautionary adage. This film documents how even the most powerful, rich, respected and educated Russians can be easily fooled, duped, bamboozled and swindled by any smelly beggar staggering out of the gutter (aka, "sanitary sewer facility," in Russia). Because jealousy, alcoholism, envy, suspicion, pettiness and sloth are the hallmarks of what passes for the Russian "character," any devious plotter can become king in the land of the morally blind, whether his name is Rasputin or just plain Putin. There's no disputing that.

Lionel Barrymore Back To Back!

[malvernp · 7/10 · 5 February 2021]

It was probably just fate, but within the space of less than a year----Lionel Barrymore created two very vivid but quite different movie villains functioning in pre-revolutionary Czarist Russia. In The Yellow Ticket (TYT) (1931), he plays a corrupt amoral nobleman who is also a powerful law enforcement official. And in Rasputin And The Empress (RATE) (1932), Barrymore assumes the role of Rasputin--the Mad Monk who actually manipulated himself into the Romanoff royal household, and ended up becoming a historically significant person whose influence was felt at the highest level of the Russian government.

TYT is a product of the Fox Studios, and is the lesser known of the two films. Other than featuring a strong menacing role for Barrymore as the personification of pure evil, TYT also starred lovely Elissa Landi as the young Jewish heroine who must assume the disguise of a prostitute to be able to move freely within Russia. TYT also co-stars a young Laurence Olivier in one of his earliest screen roles as an English journalist and Landi's love interest. Directed by Raoul Walsh, this pre-code effort is dominated by Barrymore as the unrelentingly nasty bureaucrat who physically covets Landi---and is in a position to actually realize what he covets.

RATE was made at MGM in 1932, and directed by Richard Boleslawski. As is well known, it is the only film that featured the three Barrymores (Lionel, Ethel and John). It was also a pre-code movie, although that fact seems less noticable there than in TYT, with the latter's scenes of partial nudity and blatant sexuality. In RATE, Lionel Barrymore's part is based on a real person. Therefore his many truly negative qualities are suggested by the historical evidence, although a number of liberties were taken by MGM in the course of bringing this character to the screen.

How did it happen that Lionel Barrymore played these two dislikable Czarist-era Russian villains almost back to back? It really does seem to be mere coincidence---but it is nonetheless remarkable. While the Rasputin part is much better known and far more flamboyant, his unscrupulous Count In TYT has greater complexity and is more subtle. When Barrymore is stalking Landi almost like a feline predator in search of its prey, it is impossible not to be caught up in the terror inherent in this situation. Interestingly, when TYT earlier appeared as a play, the Count character was then portrayed on the stage by John Barrymore!

Neither of these two films would qualify as a true classic---although RATE is certainly the more famous for its multi-Barrymore casting situation.. But given how Lionel Barrymore evolved into an actor who played many more sympathetic characters as he aged during the late 1930s, it is certainly interesting to see him so successfully performing in these two rather repulsive roles at this stage of his career.

Fascinating Account of the "Mad Monk" and Featuring the Three Barrymores

[romanorum1 · 8/10 · 4 February 2016]

The movie commences in March 1913 amid festivities including the Russian Orthodox ritual, the tercentenary (300th anniversary) of the Romanov rule in Russia. Foreign dignitaries attend, including Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary. The Archduke was destined to be assassinated by a Serbian national in June 1914, an event that would trigger World War I. The ceremony is interrupted by news of Prince Paul Chegodieff (John Barrymore) that Sergei, the czar's uncle and brother of Grand Duke Igor (C. Henry Gordon) and the father of Princess Natasha (Diana Wynyard), has been assassinated. The czar (Ralph Morgan) orders the suspects to be shot immediately without trial. Chegodieff urges moderation; he is also concerned about negative publicity.

Three months later the Czarevitch Alyosha (Tad Alexander), the young son of Czar Nicholas II and a hemophiliac, suffers from a bleeding attack. His life is in danger; his vital signs are posted for public viewing. Enter Grigory Rasputin (Lionel Barrymore), not a priest but a hypnotist and mystic. As he does a better job than the court doctors and appears to heal the boy – at least the symptoms of hemophilia – he gains the favor of Czarina Alexandra (Ethel Barrymore). Because his status rises, he has influence over high appointments, even when the candidate is incompetent. Rasputin happens to enjoy the company of younger women. Paul dislikes this crude and vulgar eccentric, and refers to him as a charlatan, a "Holy Leech." Rasputin in turn develops extreme megalomania: "I will be Russia," he utters. He urges the czar to continue his mobilization and stand up to the German Kaiser and defend Serbia, even if these actions lead to war. As usual, Chegodieff urges moderation. The film is inaccurate here, as Rasputin in real life urged Nicholas not to go to war in 1914. Not only are wars ruinous in lives and property, but the peasants who are armed may not want to turn in their weapons at war's end. These points concerning the First World War are not really covered by the film. In the movie, Rasputin loses the favor of the czarina during the war, a situation that never happened as she backed him to the end. In the film Rasputin has maintained his favor with Czar Nicholas, who eventually dismisses his rival Chegodieff from his military rank. Meanwhile Nicholas has taken over personal command of the Russian armies.

The final twenty-five minutes focus on the end of Rasputin (1916) and the removal of the czar the following year. The liquidation of the czar's family subsequently occurred at Ekaterinburg by the Bolshevists (1918). Although the film is fairly accurate about the monk's demise, note that Rasputin's actual death also came as a result of several gunshot wounds. The cyanide-poisoned Tobolsk cakes apparently had little effect. Unlike the film's premise, in real life Rasputin accepted the fateful invitation of his rival to attend the party on 30 December 1916. Although the movie shows the food riots and dissatisfaction of the populace (some stock footage of actual events), it fails to go into detail concerning the fate of the czar's family. Such particulars would include Russia's defeat and withdrawal from the war (1917) and the subsequent civil war fighting between the Reds and Whites. There is another inaccuracy, specifically when the movie earlier implies that the Duma (legislative assembly) was being formed in 1913. Actually the Duma was formed in 1906, following the disastrous defeat of the Russians in the Russo-Japanese War and the Russian revolution of 1905. On the other hand, it is certainly true that people could purchase Rasputin's favor and gain appointments to high office without regard to their qualifications.

In the beginning film credits, the cast listing claims that Chegodieff, Natasha, Grand Duke Igor, and Doctor Remezov are fictional characters, but historians will recognize Chegodieff as Prince Feliks Yusupov (one of Rasputin's assassins), Natasha as Princess Irina (Yusupov's wife), and Grand Duke Igor as Grand Duke Nicholas (not the same man as the czar). In real life Prince Feliks Yusupov took offense and in 1934 brought a libel lawsuit against MGM, the film's producers. He won his case. "Rasputin and the Empress" is the only film that features together the three Barrymores: Lionel, Ethyl, and John. They do well enough; that is, in 1930s acting mode. Lionel, although a decade older than Rasputin when the mystic flourished, captures the coarseness of the infamous and enigmatic character, and his impact in Russia's royal court. John's portrayal of the assassin Chegodieff is sympathetic as one who earnestly wants to save Russia from the unpopular eccentric. As for Ethyl, this was her inroad into talkies. Ralph Morgan adequately conveys Czar Nicholas' lack of resolution and astuteness. The costumes and sets are of high quality; the plot is easily followed and maintains interest.

Good drama, but historically inaccurate

[CaressofSteel75 · 7/10 · 29 April 2022]

I never had a chance to see this one until it popped up on TCM recently. While this doesn't rate up there with the all time greats, it's well worth your time if you like to absorb classic era cinema.

There are lots of good scenes of royal & religious ritual shot with a high degree of reverence, and the tension builds well as Russia inches closer to war against the Germans. You will enjoy seeing three Barrymores in the same production, especially Lionel Barrymore as the mad monk Rasputin- shot in the days before he was confined to a wheel chair.

This movie plays fast and loose with the history of the era, so don't take it as an historical lesson.

Good News Bad News Scenario

[Sharclon8 · 5/10 · 4 May 2005]

The Good News: All 3 of the Barrymores are together in 1 Movie. In fact, it is the only time they are together in one movie. It is done by MGM so the costumes, scenery, background etc are all lavish even delicious. The acting is even quite good. And it is great to see John Barrymore in a good role even a romantic role before his drinking made him a caricature of himself. The Bad News: It is historically so inaccurate that it drives you crazy. Lionel Barrymore was a very good actor, but for reasons I will explain his performance was way overwrought and overdone. The part called for him to play Rasputin as if he had the cunning and the outright intelligence to maneuver state heads to do his bidding. The movie was made in 1932 which was just 15 years from the actual Russian Revolution and so the people that made the movie really did not know what we know now. Even so the actual facts of the death of Rasputin were known and to my mind the truth was far more dramatic than the way this movie portrayed Rasputin's killing. Even then they knew that The Empress never did figure out what a scoundrel Rasputin was, whereas in the movie she finally sees through him and calls on John Barrymore to save the throne by getting rid of him. I guess MGM wanted Ethel and John Barrymore to seem heroic. Knowing what we know now just makes Lionel's performance of Rasputin seem completely off the mark and throws the whole movie out of whack.

This movie pulled me in

[u4775-1 · 9/10 · 6 February 2020]

When I recorded this movie recently, it was not to watch the entire movie but simply scan thru it for items that interest me about pre-code movies. This movie however quickly pulled me in. Not sure if it was the Oscar nominated writing or not, but what what kept me engrossed in this film was watching the Barrymore family. Lionel, Ethel, and John were all on display for watching, and as it turned out, for comparing. I came away from it with new perspectives about them. I had watched many of the movies of Ethel and Lionel, only a few of John and all when they were older. I think we are all familiar with Ethel and Lionel playing their older character parts but this movie displayed their romantic lead characters, a first with me for Lionel and Ethel to some extent. I found Ethel very attractive, something I never really appreciated in her later, older roles, and she was just over 50 in this movie at the time too. Quite a beauty in her time I think. I found John's performance very stiff and poor really, but I was blown away by Lionel's performance as the domineering and lecherous Rasputin. I don't know what the competition was in 1932 for best actor but I find it hard to believe anyone was better that year. I have never seen him in that type of role before or since. I always base my opinion on how well an actor sells the part, and he sold it in spades. I don't see how it could have been any better, one could really see how someone like Rasputin could come to have the enormous control over the Romanov family that he did in the film. You should watch this film if only to see Lionel Barrymore in his finest performance ever in my opinion.

Only Film Three Barrymores Appeared Together

[springfieldrental · 7/10 · 27 December 2022]

The Barrymore siblings, John, Lionel and Ethel, were hugely popular stage actors for decades beginning in the early 1900's. While John and Lionel had appeared in an occasional movie together, Ethel decided to stick with the stage after appearing in 15 silent movies in the late 1910s. The three Barrymores, besides a brief appearance in a 1917 lost film, were never together either on the stage or in a talkie before. Persuaded by MGM, the three shared the screen for their only surviving film together in December 1932 "Rasputin and the Empress."

Ethel had been excited to see her two brothers and act with them. This was also her first film with sound. The Barrymore's childhood was not the happiest once their mother died of tuberculosis in 1893 at the age of 37. Their grandmother, Louisa Lane Drew, manager of Philadelphia' most prominent theatre, the Arch Street Theatre, partially raised the children after her daughter-in-law's death. When times got tough, Louisa thrusted the three kids onto the stage, where they acted out their childhood frustrations growing up in a suppressive household at grandma's. Once they were old enough to go on their own, they left separately and rarely got together.

"It was great fun to be with them," recalled Ethel later on the MGM production. When she initially committed to the film she said "Great! And tell me what poor benighted and unlucky individual is to direct this opus in which all three of us are to act together?" Charles Brabin, just off directing 'The Mask of Fu Manchu," locked horns with Ethel almost immediately. The stage actress wasn't used to the process of filmmaking. Calling him Mr. Theda Bara after the director's famous actress wife, Ethel ended up getting Brabin pulled off the movie for Richard Boleslawski.

There was a certain competitive air between the two brothers on the set. In one early scene Brabin directed, John played an actor's trick of drawing viewers' attention to his character but placing a hand on Lionel's shoulders despite it not being in the script. Lionel left the set after getting permission and went outside to the nearest phone booth to talk to the director. "Mr. Brabin," Lionel said, " you better advise Mr. John Barrymore to not place his hand on me at the close of this scene, lest I lay one on him!" Brabin relayed the message and John never did again.

The precious hours the three actors spent socially together while making "Rasputin and the Empress" were few since their on-set schedule was hectic with constant script changes and little opportunity to share scenes. Boleslawski knew he had to treat the three siblings delicately since the Barrymores wielded incredible power with the studio. "They know when they're good," Boleslawski said. "At other times when it is necessary to have something done differently or done over, we confer and cooperate."

During the scriptwriting process of "Rasputin and the Empress," writer Mercedes de Acosta personally knew one of the people who murdered Rasputin, Felix Yusupov. MGM head of production Irving Thalberg wanted to give Yusupov, the husband of Princess Irina Yusupov and a distant relative to the late Tsar Nicholas (in the film she's named Princess Natasha), motivation for the killing. He insisted de Acosta include a scene where Rasputin physically takes advantage of her, which, the scriptwriter knew, never happed. She refused and Thalberg proceeded to fire her. Once the Yusupovs saw the movie, they sued the studio for libel and an invasion of privacy. An English court found the studio guilty, awarding the pair almost $130,00 in damages. In the United States, MGM settled out of court, giving the Yusupovs over $250,000. Both courts agreed a disclaimer would have prevented the suit from taking place. After the expensive MGM lawsuit, Hollywood studios took notice and began the practice seen up to today in every loosely-based historical movie to include the statement "This motion picture is a work of fiction and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental."

Three Barrymores might be too many

[DKosty123 · 5/10 · 16 May 2011]

For it's time, this movie is a bit over long. As far as how accurate it is, I really wonder if Rasputin is really the person Lionel Barrymore plays. There is no doubt Lionel is the meaty role here and this might be his best role.

The film does present the fact accurately that Rasputin is considered dangerous at the end so he is poisoned.

Kind of surprised to hear the Russian President advocating a British or American style of government for Russia. Think that might be dreaming historically as when the Czar falls, there is no doubt the Communists and then Stalin were more ruthless and Dictatorial than ever. This is to play for US Audiences I am sure.