User Reviews

I remember watching this series and trying to explain a critical short scene in it (regarding Charles XII of Sweden and his fencing teacher) to a friend of mine.

Charles is a young man (like his Russian opposite number Peter), but he has a small country of limited resources which by a fluke has become Europe's number three political power in 1699. Peter has a nation weakened by civil wars and foreign invaders, which he is striving to modernize. It has population and resources. If he can do it, he can make it the third greatest power in Europe (after France and Britain). Charles is aware of this so he will become Peter's greatest enemy.

But while Peter is involved in every facet of modernization, Charles rules a modern country. He just has to concentrate on military matters. Charles however has a flaw: he is not a realist but a romantic. He reads Plutarch's Lives of the Ancient Greeks and Romans, and believes he should mold his character to reflect their better characters. So while his political ancestors, Gustavus Adolphus, Queen Christiana, used the military on limited grounds, Charles would use it to avenge his personal honor.

This flaw is shown in the scene where he is in fencing training. He is a good fencer, and has cornered his teacher, but momentarily lets his guard down for some trivial reason not concerning his fighting ability. But the fencing master, because he has been trounced so thoroughly, sees he can end the game on a fencing technical error - he moves and prevents Charles from picking up the sword. Charles is award of the technical mistake, but between gentleman in a training session it should be lightly forgiven and definitely not taken advantage of. This does not happen. The fencing master smiles as he politely lifts his foot off Charles' foil blade but announces the King has lost. Charles waits a moment, and then slices the fencing master on his cheek as punishment. Sadistic - yes, but it was based on the fencing master not behaving as a gentleman and not showing respect to his employer.

That was Charles - and he certainly might be considered certifiable. His wars with Peter lasted a decade, and two of them, the Swedish victory at Nerva, and the final Russian victory at Poltava are shown. Charles is frequently said to be the forerunner of Napoleon and Hitler in mistakenly invading Russia. But he invaded Russia when Peter was trying to modernize and organize it. It was a better run country in both 1812 and 1941. And Charles did one thing the other two never grasped. He never fully had the supply problem of Napoleon (with his half a million men invasion force) and Hitler (with his multi-hundred thousand men armies), but when it was cut, Charles simply ordered his men to consider themselves a vast robber-band to plunder the Russians for supplies. It worked for a decade (longer than Napoleon's half year or Hitler's two and a half years) - which suggests that there was a possible solution to the supply mess that destroyed the other two leaders. It was a failure of Charles' army at Poltava that made the Swedish invasion a disaster. Had he returned with his forces intact, we would consider Charles a military genius today.

There are little scenes like that that made the series worth watching. But it did not go deeply enough into Peter's motivations and limitations (like Stalin he could panic too easily). His important reforms in government structure were not dealt with (possibly too boring for the audience - but it is part of his record). He is a really important figure. But on many points it struck the record properly. I also recommend the peculiar double tragedy of Peter and his son's religious differences, which led the Tsar to have the young man executed in 1718. When realizing that the Tsar had to pursue modernizing his country, while his son wanted to maintain his right to worship Russo Orthodoxy in the old (reactionary method) - so the boy was standing up for religious freedom of conscience. It was a very odd double tragedy.

(Some historical spoilers, lest the unwary are taken in by this serial!)

I first saw this on BBC1 in 1987, shortly before beginning my doctoral research on the historical iconography of the Petrine era, and it stood me in good stead as an unintentionally comic point of reference. Nikolai I, with his cult of Official Nationality and near-deification of Peter, would have *loved* this series; this viewer, however...

Chronology, geography and characters are wilfully distorted, sometimes to comic effect. General Gordon, who strangely appears *without* an Aberdeenshire accent, gets to bed a Swedish belle - loosely based on Aurora von Königsmarck - and fight at Narva several years *after* his death. Peter picks up his future second wife at Azov, instead of in Peterburg after the Baltic campaigns. Tsarevich Aleksei, actually an 8 year old, is shown as a grown man at the time of the execution of the Strel'tsy and the banishment of his mother!

But more often than not, the distortions are to show Peter in the best light possible. The reforming Regent Sof'ya and her highly Westernised, intellectual adviser Golitsyn are shown as conspiratorial opponents of change. (The casting of Vanessa Redgrave as Sof'ya is amusing if you know the portraits of the real Sof'ya, a decidedly plump young woman.) Evdokiya, Peter's harmless first wife, is depicted as a treacherous, frigid shrew. Tsarevich Aleksei - scholarly, consumptive, abused Aleksei - is played by Boris Plotnikov (who was superb as the Christ-like partisan hero of 'The Ascent' - did he need hard currency so badly to appear in this?) as a geeky, reactionary schemer with a terrible haircut. (Aleksei was actually strikingly handsome, with huge brown eyes and long dark curls.) Meanwhile, the corrupt, power-hungry Menshikov and duplicitous, torturing Tolstoi are depicted as lovable rogues, and Marta/Ekaterina as decidedly wholesome... The tough (and prematurely balding) young Swedish soldier-king Carl XII, who resembled a shorter Max von Sydow, is depicted as a vaguely camp cherub with golden curls. All stuff which would have gone down well with Nikolai I-era or Soviet historiography, but not with modern scholars in Western Europe or Russia.

The series leaves a nasty taste with its automatic demonisation of anyone who tried to resist Peter: "blaming the victim" writ large. It even tries to enlist viewers' sympathy for him while he's watching his own son being tortured! The script is also clichéd and awkward ("I'll drag you kicking and screaming into the modern world!" says Peter on one occasion). Characters are depicted wandering around in traditional dress long after the Court had been dragooned into Western clothes, and there is no depiction of 'Sankt-Peterburg' itself, although it is talked about.

If you have a warped and twisted sense of humour, this series is actually very funny, like 'Blackadder' played by a cast who don't realise it's a comedy. That's why I'm giving it 3/10, instead of just 1 - for black humour value. I had to laugh at it, or I'd have thrown a brick through the TV. The BBC's own, much lower-budget production, 'Peter in Paradise' (2003), is superior, as is the 1996 Russian film 'Tsarevich Aleksei', based on Merezhkovskii's novel.

While this is very epic in scope, and beautifully filmed as a four part TV mini-series, there's something so personal and touching about the very conflicted Russian tsar (Jan Niklas, later Maximilian Schell) who opened the country up to the rest of the world, for better or for worse. He has to deal with scheming older sister Princess Sophia (Vanessa Redgrave, seen in parts one through three), and a son (Boris Plotnikov) he's frequently disappointed with (mainly because of the failed marriage of Peter to Alexis's mother, Natalya Andrejchenko), ultimately choosing second wife Hanna Schygulla to be his successor.

This is frequently very violent, showing the murder of a Russian priest by fire and the combination of hangings and beheadings where Peter gets involved. The opening up to the world involves encounters with England, France, Prussia and Sweden (a war later on in Peter's reign), and a rebellion against Peter thanks to his banished sister's continued interference. First wife Natalya Andrejchenko continues to influence their son and is obviously vindictive, while second wife Hanna Schygulla is his conscience.

There are a slew of cameos by an international list of stats, from the aged Laurence Olivier as the king of England to Mel Ferrer as the king of Prussia, and Trevor Howard, Omar Sharif and Lilli Palmer in other small roles. It's beautifully filmed and shows the stunning art of the imperial Russians, although far from gauche like Josef Von Sternberg's over the top "The Scarlet Empress". Definitely inspires the viewer to do their own research because as excellent as it is, it's very selective in what it covers.

For me Peter the Great was excellent. It is the kind of topic and life that the mini-series concept was invented. It would take six hours to go into both the policy achievements of his reign and the various struggles for power with all the intrigue surrounding them during his reign.

Peter Romanov, Peter the first of Russia was born to Czar Alexis who was the second Czar under the new Romanov dynasty. Alexis had two wives and Peter was born to his second wife. Alexis had several children by both wives, but only two sons, one by each wife. Peter was clearly the one with the abilities and personality to rule, but Ivan who most charitably can be described as a dullard, but dullards have their uses if they can be manipulated by ambitious people.

Maximilian Schell plays Peter as an adult and the mini-series allows him to develop all facets of his character. The western quarter of Moscow intrigued him, the foreign colony where people dressed so differently and seem to be always innovating. His Russia resisted all change be it technological, be it fashion, be it in its special brand of Christianity the Russian Orthodox Church. Because of that they were hemmed in and he decided things had to change. He meets resistance with those with a built in interest for resistance and the general inertia. But before he's done he has a modern army and navy, a new capital and functioning seaport on the Baltic named St. Petersburg, and certain changes in fashion come to at least the intelligentsia of the regime.

But history has its ironies and Peter who won the succession battle dies without a named heir and for the next 15 years there are several czars among Peter's descendants until 1740 when his daughter Elizabeth becomes Empress and has a 22 year reign that was very popular. He also married twice and the children of both wives were rivals. Peter had a son also named Alexis and that proves to be the biggest tragedy of his reign.

Some familiar faces are in the cast in supporting roles. Peter made a grand tour of Europe the first czar to see what was beyond Russia's borders. He met with such people Isaac Newton played by Trevor Howard, King Frederick William of Prussia played by Mel Ferrer and a much too old Laurence Olivier playing William of Orange King of Great Britain and Statholder of the Netherlands. If I had to single out one in the cast for special praise it would be Vanessa Redgrave as Peter's scheming half sister Princess Sophia.

If you find that Peter The Great resembles I Claudius you'll be in agreement with me. What this series does represent is fine history and fine entertainment.

*Spoiler/plot- 1986, Russia at the dawn of the Eighteenth century --- a vast, chilling mysterious land, mostly medieval. A country led by a man whose curious, questioning spirit is eager to learn all that is new and Western. Peter was a monarch who brings his feudal country into the modern world. The power plays, love affairs and international intrigues are brought to life by a stellar cast, featuring Oscar winners. Peter the Great was a shrewd Czar and visionary, statesman, sailor, blacksmith, shipbuilder and military leader. He's a husband and a father. He's a man who dared to dream the impossible dream and succeeded in the greatest measure.

*Special Stars- Maximilian Schell, Vanessa Redgrave, Omar Shariff with cameos from, Sir Laurence Olivier, Trevor Howard, and Elke Summers.

*Theme- Russia is complicated and eastern.

*Based on- Russian history

*Trivia/location/goofs- From a NBC TV miniseries. This film was produced with the assistance of the Soviet government. The shooting locations were all in Russia and the real royal, church, and palaces interior shooting scenes were in historical places. The locations, weather, and costumes were extravagant and rich to enjoy. The history facts in this film overused due to 'dramatic license'.

*Emotion- The editing of this week long many episodes miniseries into a feature film makes it somewhat boring for the viewer to sit through. There are too many long boring opening establishing shots of lead characters walking into frame at historic places. While some of that is tolerable, sometimes this film is nothing more that a Russian travelogue instead of a narrative feature film. The factual period history is questionable. It's a western point-of-view on a very foreign eastern subject matter and it is very liberally biased. I found myself yearning to see the next Oscar winner to pop-up in scenes or looking to enjoy the costumed battle scenes. The narrative seems to get lost in the beauty shots and landscape views. The huge cast of story characters and the many decade story caused a loss of interest in all of them except the lead roles, so the character nuances of the plot script was too confusing to keep straight in your mind. I found myself feeling like I was watching paint dry and that's a shame for such an expensive film project. Other film project of this size have done it much better like; 'Gone with the Wind' 'Laurence of Arabia', 'Citizen Kane' and 'The Godfather'.