Anastasia - 100th Anniversary

[Armie3]

Posted: 7/17/18 at 7:53am

Today marks a century since the brutal murders of the Romanov familiy at Ekaterinburg, Russia.

 

Despite what the Broadway musical would have you believe, Anastacia, aged just 17, was in fact killed alongside the rest of her family, first she was shot and then viciously slaughtered with bayonets. This was proven conclusively when all of the remains were found and verified in the late 1990s.

Will the Broadway show that bears her name be marking this occasion in any way? I would argue that this is the least they could do. There are for sure questions of appropriateness about the erasure of a young girl's murder. Let it not be forgotten that this show is based on ignoring the brutal killing of a young girl, who deserves respect and remembrance.

 

 

Updated On: 7/17/18 at 07:53 AM

[CT2NYC]

Posted: 7/17/18 at 8:00am

The first way to show her respect is to spell her name correctly. It's Anastasia.

[Armie3]

Posted: 7/17/18 at 8:20am

Well, yes...that is the commonly accepted anglicized version of her name. Thank you for pointing out my unfortunate typo.

[JennH]

Posted: 7/17/18 at 10:08am

Yes...but remember this is also has basis in ANIMATED MUSICAL FILM. If they followed history to a T, there'd BE no stage musical at all, because she'd die within those first 10 minutes. Has it been discovered she died with her family since the film came out 20 years ago? Yes. Can I still enjoy the piece of theatre it is and still be completely aware it's not historically accurate at all? Yes. 

[Armie3]

Posted: 7/17/18 at 10:22am

Good for you. Does this mean that all audience-members are aware of the truth?

The animated musical film is just as questionable. Would you enjoy a musical about Anne Frank where she somehow miraculously escaped the annex and lived happily ever after with Prince Charming?

[GlindatheGood22]

Posted: 7/17/18 at 10:36am

On Saturday I got back from a two week trip to Russia commemorating the 100th anniversary of the murders. The last imperial family have in many ways been my life's work - years of research, etc etc. None of that would have happened if not for the 1997 movie. I was only four when it came out, but it constitutes many of my first memories.

When Anastasia first came to Broadway everyone kept asking me if I would see it, and I insisted that I wouldn't, since I refused to give money to anything that gave credence to the idea that anyone could have survived. But in the time it's been running my position has softened a little. I think it's OK to appreciate it for what it is - having not seen the Bway production I can't speak to it, but at least the movie is not attempting to present itself as fact. Even at four years old that was pretty clear to me. So the way I deal with it (and again, I speak only for myself) is to keep it compartmentalized - it's a great movie with a great score, but very little of it is based in fact.

[JennH]

Posted: 7/17/18 at 11:50am

Totally get where you're coming from Armie and you as well, Glinda, but there's some nuances that I think need to be made. I actually pointed them out in another thread as well. The differences in comparing the Romanovs and Anne lie in their history and how well the general populace knows said history. Yes I know it's the age of information and people should know these things, but bear with me for a second...

The assassination of the Romanovs came 3 decades before WWII but yet it wasn't known or proven that yes they all died that day a century ago, until almost a century later. That history has been shrouded in so much, and I apologize for this..."rumor, legend, and mystery" for close to a century that it's possibly easier to take in as a piece of musical theatre, or any historically inaccurate piece based on non fiction. When the film was released, it STILL wasn't discovered for certainty whether she died with her family or not, so the film stand son it's own as a Disney-esque piece, but it also wasn't pretending to be anything else anyway. It knew it was Disney-esue, it was never trying to claim to be historical. Since then, yes, we know for sure she died with her family.  And as I said in the other thread, this is what makes the musical to be in a rock and hard place. I feel it was timing that is part of the issue, not that one can control timing much however...They finally got it to the 20 years later, after the mystery of it was finally gone. It honestly would have been easier to have brought this musical to the stage sooner after the film's release, because at the least the mystery would still have been there, and easier to take in as an audience member. But by the time it came to the stage, the mystery was already gone, her death was proven, and yet heres the stage musical where she "survived". I do think it was odd to take the musical in a more "historical" direction when it's no longer a secret she died, (again, rock and a hard place considering the discovery) but I also had to constantly remind myself, that it's also based on the film. So I've come to the idea that I'll just take the stage musical as a non-magical fairy tale that happens to take place in Russia, while I continue to learn what really happened. 

Anne on the other hand...again it was 30 or so years later, but yet, that has NEVER been shrouded in any mystery. At all. Ever. So to pretend any thing else would indeed be ridiculous. Everyone on the planet knows what happened to Anne and the rest of the 8 in the Auchterhuis, unless you live under a rock...good heavens I hope not. But...also WWII is taught way more in schools than Russian history. There's a few theories I have as to why that may be, but that's for another day, but even in 2018, no not everyone knows the whole of Russian history or the Romanov dynasty. It's not taught the world over the way WWII is, I don't remember ever learning ANYTHING about Russia at all during my schools days, even in world history class, because world history is so gargantuan (like, duh), that those classes tend to be a very broad overview rather than anything in depth. But now that we're in 2018, I will wholly admit, there's no reason to not be aware of what really happened, we have google. But again, considering how history in is taught in schools and the rest of the above, it stands to reason why one piece is more mentally acceptable as a "piece of fluff musical" than other is. Hell, I love Pocahontas as a film, but I'm not an idiot. I take it as the Disney film it is, because like Anastasia, screen and stage, it's not trying to be historical. 

This turned out longer than I planned, and don't get me wrong, I'm by no means trying to argue your point, just adding more info. Like Glinda said, a good way to deal with these kinds of thing is to compartmentalize. I also do hope the show will do/say something at their show tonight. I think it would be great, but also make it an acknowledgment of "Yes, we know what really happened". 

[bwayrose7]

Posted: 7/17/18 at 11:51am

Armie3 said: "Good for you. Does this mean that all audience-members are aware of the truth?

The animated musical film is just as questionable. Would you enjoy a musical about Anne Frank where she somehow miraculously escaped the annex and lived happily ever after with Prince Charming?"

I'll bite. The difference with your example, in my opinion, is that there was never any doubt or mystery that Anne Frank survived, whereas the mystery of the missing Romanov sister (Maria or Anastasia, depending which scientists you asked) was ongoing for several decades, including when the animated film was made. The movie (and now the musical) is a depiction of a now-disproven theory that was around long enough to spark the public imagination, and I feel like that's not a terrible thing.
 

Updated On: 7/17/18 at 11:51 AM

[disneybroadwayfan22]

Posted: 7/17/18 at 10:25pm

Any reports if they did something?

[poisonivy2]

Posted: 7/17/18 at 10:32pm

Ok I'll bite. The Disney movie (as well as the 1956 movie) and that imposter "Anna Anderson" as well as Anastasia the musical probably enhanced the reputation of the Romanovs more than they deserved. Of course the Romanov children were innocents but Tsar Nicholas and Tsarina Alexandra were absolutely horrible rulers who were completely out of touch with the Russian people. 

This musical is a fictitious fantasy. 

[lambchop2]

Posted: 7/18/18 at 12:03am

disneybroadwayfan22 said: "Any reports if they did something?"

Christy Altomare posted a photograph of the real Anastasia on her Instagram with the caption "You are remembered."

I didn't see any other mentions of it on the actresses' social media or the show's official instagram/twitter pages.

[Armie3]

Posted: 7/18/18 at 7:45am

Thanks all for your thoughts.

I do understand how this show came to be, however I would say the historical fact of the executions have always been pretty much solid - the rumors of survival were just that - rumors, basically an urban legend. It has always been pretty much accepted that the probability was that the entire family died (brutally) on that fateful day. The people who made the 1956 film knew this, the people who made the 1997 film knew this - and the people who made the Broadway show have no excuse for not knowing this.

Finally, I would just like to clarify that I am by no means saying that if you enjoy this show you are a bad person. The whole thing to me is just a little icky is all.

[minicko88]

Posted: 7/18/18 at 1:22pm

I would also like to point out. The musical never claims that Anastasia survives. It is merely a rumor. The story is more about Anya. At the end of the show, you are left not knowing whether Anya was the real Anastasia. It is left as a mystery. I do not think it takes away from the fact that we now know the truth. The characters, in that moment in time, wouldn't have known the truth as we do now.