HBO Historical Drama 'Catherine the Great'

Wasn't Barbra Streisand wanting to make a movie about Catherine the Great? Lord, that woman has the worst timing. She waits until everything is impossible.

Is Mirren attempting a Russian accent this time? The cast of The Last Station ruined that movie with their polished English accents.

So does she fuck a horse?

She looks like Catherine the Grate

Sounds like she's doing a mash-up of German and Russian.

They spoke French at the Russian court at the time, though.

So she should be speaking French with a Russian accent then? Or English as spoken by a mainly French-speaking Russian? 🤔

She was German, but once she arrived in Russia, she threw herself into learning the language

Arriving at the London premiere in a sedan chair.

"Is Mirren attempting a Russian accent this time? The cast of The Last Station ruined that movie with their polished English accents."

Mirren's father was Russian and of the Russian Nobility. Her father's family got stranded in London in 1917.

BREAKING: Sarah Jessica Parker cast as Catherine the Great's lover

Aw, Catherine.... quit horsing around.

Here is still from the audition Angelina Jolie' skyped in

She's got an English accent.

I don't think this will be that good but I'll watch anyway because what else is there to watch...

R14 - It is a British hysterical costume drama made for HBO. It will be great if for nothing else than the palace real estate porn!

R14 I hope "hysterical" was a pun.

If you have to employ a stunt like arriving in a sedan chair you know the film is bad.

It's a four-part miniseries, not a film. I fucked up the title.

Catherine the Great was a big woman and not rail thin and camera ready like Mirren. That’s a bug distraction for me.

R17 It's a limited series, but yes, agreed Although everything is gimmicky these days, isn't it? Especially if it's American made.

R15 - It was!

No matter how shit it is I bet she'll get an Emmy nom next year

I always imagined Catherine sounding like 'Rich Russian Lady'.

It’s really not that long a drive to State College, PA though.

^^^ The non sequitur troll is back!

Full season dropped on Sky Atlantic yesterday, for British DLers.

Comes to HBO in two weeks.

Yes, I’ll watch. It’s a story I don’t know much about

She was smart, clever, conniving, and ruthless, and had no qualms about using her snatch to get what she wanted.

I'm very much looking forward to this. It's a great true story, and Mirren is always so delicious! The woman should give master classes in sexiness.

Who plays young Catherine? Because most of the real drama happened when Catherine was a young bride, and had to cope with a retarded husband a seize power and all that stuff. So whoever is playing the character as a young woman is actually going to have to carry the show, not that I'm not looking forward to seeing Mirren have her pick of all the young men in Russia.

Oh, dear. Is Helen Mirren supposed to be a 30-something Catherine? This is so wrong!!!

When making a movie or series about imperial Russia there is no need to make up stories. Imperial family society court gossips sleeping around are like fairy tales. They lived isolated lives for centuries thinking they deserved all the money they had and it would never end. Hollywood gets it wrong every time when they try to come up extra story lines to their movies. Read what happened in reality and film it. The truth was unreal.

Catherine the Great lived to be 67, and spent her later years amusing herself with rotating young men (there was no horse). I presume that Mirren is playing an old queen who surrounds herself with young men, thereby living out the fantasies of the typical Datalounger.

And I checked IMDB, and nobody's credited as playing Young Catherine, so I presume the whole story is going to be about Catherine's later years. Which is a pity, Catherine's youth was quite something.

I really liked it, and wow, the Palace porn and costumes are stunning.

Story is mainly Cath and Potemkin getting it on.

Also her young lover is often naked with swinging cock on display

While Catherine became quite stout, she was slender as a young woman. You can see one of her gowns (it may be her coronation gown, I can’t remember for certain) at the Kremlin Armory museum. It’s made for a svelte woman.

Saw the first episode. The script won't blow anyone's mind, but the costumes... and that palace, holy smokes! You are not prepared, bitches.

Had no idea she was the one who did away with slavery in her country. I can't get over the fact that a foreign transplant who didn't even speak their language at first was allowed to become a ruler of Russia. Monarchies are fucking weird. And man, what a cunt she can be. Though I wonder how much of it is true and how much was made up by her political opponents, at home and abroad.

What's the difference between a liberal and an enlightened ruler? Was the word "liberal" common back then or did it emerge as a descriptor only later? Because she describes herself as such at one point. The writers probably didn't mean to draw parallels to our time, but that one speech she gives sounds like a monstrous hybrid between Trump's and Warren's speeches. "Make empire great, but also let's fight the rich and the powerful!" 🤯

Always lovely to see Rory Kinnear in things.

The series started after she allegedly got rid of her husband, so she was supposed to be around 30-40-ish. Helen Mirren was so miscast in this role.

R36 I liked it, and her. Romances in great frocks are my bag

I've outgrown "Queen".

"Was the word "liberal" common back then or did it emerge as a descriptor only later? "

Seeing as the story is about a German woman who lived in Russia and spoke French at court.. the word "liberal" would not have been used! Nor would any other English word.

However the concept had to have existed, there's always people in power who are more or less authoritarian, or who care more or less for the welfare of the common people. Of course, its a bit of a contradiction to say that an absolute monarch can be "less authoritarian", but if she cared more for the welfare of the common people and less about the privileges of the nobility, then some might think of her as a bit liberal.

I was asking more about the concept, of course. I know English wasn't spoken there. It's just weird to me that she would say she's one type of ruler when such things are usually revealed about rulers only in hindsight.

Also, she describes her aspirations in one way, but the episode opens with her being a royal cunt to someone asking for money. So there's obviously a discrepancy between what she actually is as a person and what image she wants to project.

Catherine was a brilliant, crazy survivor, and she was imported from Prussia (now Poland) to be a prince’s bride and ended up ruling over all of Russia.

There’s an interesting, soapy Russian TV series called Ekaterina: The Rise of Catherine the Great on Amazon. It’s worth watching, although there is some terrible CGI. It’s good otherwise.

I’m smitten by this guy from the Russian series. He’s so interesting looking, catlike. He’s an interesting sort of Russian that looks as Asian as he looks European, and it’s such a nice blend.

Catherine and her husband loathed each other. He most certainly would have dumped her and sent her to a convent. Fortunately for her, her husband alienated everyone. So while he was playing soldier, she was cultivating the right friendships who were easily persuaded to depose him and put her on the throne.

Apparently Russia was quite accommodating, giving HBO production access to royal palaces such as Peterhof Palace.

Wrong link, sorry.

Personally will stick with "Great Catherine" released in 1968.

Peter O'Toole, Zero Mostel, and DL fave Kate O'Mara (Patsy's sister from Ab Fab).

R35 The slavery ended when Alexander II ruled.

r48 I see. So she couldn't get it done, I gather?

Is the old bat Mirren going for another Emmy or is she meh?

R50 She actually seems to be having fun with the role

She can be so cold and terrifying at certain moments, I'd never seen anything like it. So who knows, she might yet have a chance.

Does she get her golden globes out?

Damn, the second episode really drags her former husband to filth. My god, that was one ugly motherfucker. And phimosis, bitch?! 🤢 Though I have to say, they really nailed the casting of her son, judging by her husband's portrait.

Wish I waited with my slavery question because it's addressed right away.

[quote] And I checked IMDB, and nobody's credited as playing Young Catherine

Look again.

Mae West wrote, produced, and started in a musical comedy called [italic]Catherine Was Great.[/italic]

^ *starred* in

It's not slavery--it was serfdom.

Two very different things. Anyway, she wanted to end it, and all of her philosopher correspondents plead with her to do it, but it was too politically difficult at the time.

(To clarify, serfs owed their lords their work--they had to do agricultural work or housework or whatever, but they could marry who they wanted and they had property rights. They could not be sold at a market, nor could their children be taken from them. They also had some rights and could sue their lords.)

I understand the difference well because you can imagine the history classes in euro schools go deep into serfdom (we didn't really discuss slavery at all), but the two terms are used interchangeably in this show. Probably because they thought a certain segment of the audience (more on the HBO side) could have a difficulty understanding the term "serfdom" and why it was an issue. There are some clunky expository lines, but still...

R59 - I thought the serfs were "tied to the land" and whomever owned the land had access & control of the labor of the serfs and the products of said serf labor.

r61 Well, yes, but it wasn't that easy to buy land or swap it every other day back then, was it? So for all intents and purposes, the owner WAS the land for as long as his line continued. Royal bestowals are another matter.

Alexander II abolished serfdom in 1861 in an attempt to head off an eventual revolution. Suffice to say it didn't work, and if anything poured more petrol on that fire which soon exploded.

Well, it worked for a good 50 years.

If Nick hadn't been so pigheaded, the dire things that happened probably wouldn't have.

The guy playing Peter Zavadovsky (Thomas Doherty) is 😍.

I heard Sarah Jessica Parker wanted to play the horse.

I see now from his Insta that Doherty is straight so... nevermind. Phil Dunster is another hot one, and his Insta could go either way.

r66 Joke already claimed by r11.

Oop. (I obviously didn't read every post. Just searched "horse", so I didn't see R11.)

Just finished it (thanks VPN) It was well-made and scenery/costume porn for days, but not the most compelling. As handsome as Jason Clarke is, he's no match on a screen with Mirren.

I clicked on this thread just for the horse jokes.

There was no horse! That was a rumor put about by her political enemies.

Of course, the rumor was so believable and entertaining that we're sill repeating it, Catherine went through a field of primo cock while she was alive.

I wish the love story were better balanced with politics and we had learned more about her reforms. The ending was shocking, but she created that monster all on her own, so... garbage in, garbage out, lady. Why did she hate the Germans so much when she herself was German? Because her own mother was terrible, was that it? It was nice seeing her go from a liberal to a conservative as she clung to power at all cost.

Best thing about this show are the locations, the costumes, and the lighting. One of the most gorgeously lit period dramas ever. Oh, and the eye candy...

[quote]Catherine went through a field of primo cock while she was alive

You don't say. Man, the actors cast to play her concubines on this show are 🔥🔥🔥. That casting director definitely has good taste. Features one frontal shot and a couple of tooshies as well, so keep an eye out for that.

Yes, her mother was terrible. And her loathsome husband idolized Frederick II of Prussia to the detriment of Russian interests.

Joanna Elisabeth of Holstein-Gottorp, wasn't necessarily a monster per se; there were far worse royal mothers before and after.

Saddled with an older husband in a not very exciting court, Joanna Elizabeth tried to make best of situation as she could. Her first preganacy and child birth (Catherine) was difficult and nearly killed Joanna Elizabeth; something she never forgave nor forgot Catherine for "causing" . Worse because her first born was a girl it wouldn't inherit (then current duke of duke of Anhalt-Zerbst couldn't produce, and his oldest brother was unmarried), made Joanna Elizabeth even more despondent. Had she given birth to a boy it would have been the de facto heir to duchy of Anhalt-Zerbst, and thus Joanna and her husband would have moved up.

r74 Interesting, thanks. Catherine actually said her mother was "greedy" in the show.

R59 Serfs were property in Russia. They could be bought and sold and families could be broken up. They could be whipped. They had no rights. Catherine extended serfdom, made millions of free peasants into serfs and gave them away as rewards. Read Bob Maddie, read Henri Troyat, read Catherine’s own writings, they’ve been published in English.

[quote]Catherine extended serfdom

What happened to change her mind so radically?

*to make her change her mind

[R75]

It is very easy for us today to cast dispersion on actions of various royal wives and mothers; but we must always remember it was a different time and despite their lofty status these women were just that; females in a depressingly masculine world. As such they used whatever levers of power where available to ameliorate their lot.

Joanna Elisabeth of Holstein-Gottorp may not have won any "mother of the year" awards for most warm and cuddly; but that wasn't what many royal wives/mothers were about back then. Arranging spectacular matches for their children however was in their job description.

When the Russians are in mood, they can put out some pretty good historical dramas.

One more:

[quote]Arranging spectacular matches for their children however was in their job description.

I had a good laugh when Catherine's son was being presented with Top 20 possible suitors and he was being shown their faces from those painted portraits you'd keep on your table. It hadn't even occurred to me that that was the only way you could show someone how a person looks back then.

Forgot to mention earlier in the thread that I also enjoyed the inclusion of borzois (?) running around the palace and eating leftover food. It felt true to the time period. Love those details.

Even getting around to a more historically accurate portrayal of just what happened to Nicholas II, his wife and family. But that window is opened but just so far.

r83 that looked rather accurate, what else were the missing?

Side note: Louis XVI's family had the worst treatment during their long imprisonment. Especially the unspeakable things they did to the Dauphin. In hindsight the guillotine would have been a more human end for the poor child.

To be fair, that was (pressure) cooking for a LONG time. Being a symbol had its downsides; still does.

I need to read up on what transpired in Russia. I'm on a Civil War kick, but I love a good historical drama.

[R83]

The Romanovs: An Imperial Family (full name of production where clip is taken) is rather sanitized in that it in no way reflects how cruelly the Romanovs were treated by their jailers, and their brutal murders.

One or all of the grand duchesses were criminally interfered with during captivity. Their jailers were far from deferential and kind, in fact many didn't miss a beat at any humiliation they could mete out.

r87 so they got fingered on a train? That' bad but at least it wasn't all out rape, though from their sheltered perspective I'm sire it felt just about the same.

Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette along with their family were not treated that badly early on when imprisoned in Tuileries Palace. Furniture and furnishings were brought from Versailles, they had cooks, laundresses, etc... While yes, deprived of most all freedom, things were not nearly as bad as they would become after abortive escape to Varennes.

Indeed during the massacres of 2–6 September 1792, it was those charged with guarding the RF who prevented a mob intent on murdering the king and his family from entering the Temple where family had been moved after mob violence sacked Tulieries .

Of course after the judicial murder of Louis XVI things got much grimier for his queen and their children.

Part of the reason was that the murder of Louis XVI didn't provoke the strong reaction Robespierre and others had hoped. Despite all the mob violence and everything else the murder of an anointed sovereign was unsettling to many. So Robespierre and others turned on Marie-Antoinette and her children, in particular the son (now Louis XVII). The new "king" was removed from his mother with instructions given to basically beat and otherwise mistreat all notions of royalty out of the young boy.

Marie-Antoinette was always largely hated in France, so next logical thing to do was whip up that sentiment and murder a queen consort. That would be the blood bond Robespierre and others looked for to bind people of France to the Revolution. Yes, MA's conditions of imprisonment for remaining time on earth was horrible. Guards stationed inside her cell 24/7, no privacy, having to hear jailers beat her son; but OTOH she was still considered and treated as royalty. A laundress was engaged to do the queen's linen. The cook went out daily and spent money out of his own pocket for foods like duck he knew MA liked.

If you want a truly sad story, here is The Sad Life of Louis-Charles

It's not false. There are reports and signed letters from doctors and others that saw this abuse with their own eyes.

The boy was physically abused, forced to drink alcohol, woken in the middle of the night with water poured over him.for no reason, he didn't have a bucket to relieve himself so he did it on the floor. On August 19 1793, a school teacher, magistrate and municipal representative, known as Commissionaire Leboeuf, visited the tower and witnessed Simon hitting Louis-Charles. Leboeuf protested at Simon's brutality. The minutes for the General Council of the Paris Commune reveal that on 28 August Leboeuf was denounced "because he had complained of the too republican kind of education given to little Capet". (Simon would get Louis-Charkes drunk and make him sing bawdy songs and swear). Leboeuf pointed out as a teacher he did not like to hear a young boy repeat obscenities. Leboeuf was accused of daring to find fault with educating the little Capet to be a sans-culottes. It was not long before Leboeufs house was raided by police and he was imprisoned. He was later acquitted but fled Paris fearful of his life. After this, no more formal complaints were made. But after Robespierre's death, General Barras was put in charge of the tyrants children so he went to visit them and was appalled at Louis-Charles cell. He entered a foul smelling, dark room covered in filth and excrement with vermin everywhere where a child was curled up on a cot shaped like a cradle and not in the bed. The cot was too small for him, he had no sheets or blanket and wore dirty, tattered clothes. As Barras came closer he realised the boy wasn't sleeping but watching him. The boy couldn't stand without feeling pain and Barras realised hus clothes were too small for him and cutting into his skin. He had the trousers cut open. He saw the child's knees, ankles and hands were swollen and a ghastly colour, his face was puffed and he was covered in bruises, sores and cuts.

Barras ordered the boys cell cleaned but it still wasn't done for weeks. 1 September 1794, eight months after the commencement of Louis-Charles solitary confinement his cell was cleaned out. There was eight months of excrement on the floor. So no it wasn't all lies. These were the people that thought they were better than the king and queen whose heads they cut off. It makes me wonder why the French celebrate Bastille Day. I would be ashamed of what was just a blood lust by the people.

[R87}

It is highly likely one or all of the Grand Duchesses were raped during their captivity.

Who was going to prevent this from happening? We're talking about a bunch of (mostly Jewish) lower class thugs who rose up into various positions in military and landed the plumb role of being jailers of the last Czar and his family. They drank and were often drunk, along with being common and coarse.

The GDs were all beautiful young women carefully brought up in a sheltered environment. God only knows all over Russia females from the nobility on down to just wealthy or better off classes were being raped (sometimes gang raped) as Bolsheviks and others sought to settle scores.

Suggest you read a rather excellent book "Former People" to learn just what happened to the nobility/elite of Russia during and after Revolution. Name of book comes from a decree issued by Lenin; essentially making such persons just that "former people"; they no longer existed or were to be considered part of Russia. As such it was open season.....

Furthermore it was the (then) rumors about grand duchesses being raped that was part of the strong reaction Romanov family had against Anna Anderson and her story about being Anastasia.

Rumors had made their way around Russia/Europe that Czar's daughters had been criminally interfered with; and rape was something deeply shameful to a family at that time. So up pops Anna Anderson claiming to be GD Anastasia who gave herself to some unknown/unnamed military man. Worse a child was born from that illicit encounter (or encounters) who was conveniently left behind somewhere in Russia.

If Anna Anderson was GD Anastasia and everything she said was true the shame and embarrassment to Romanovs largely would have over come any relief of finding one survived. This was chief behind the Romanovs launching an extensive investigation into just who "Anna Anderson" was exactly. In due time they had their answer, AA was Franziska Schanzkowska, a mentally unstable woman of Polish origins. It would take decades before rest of world caught up to that fact, but Romanovs were satisfied and relieved at same time.

Seems like the younger daughters were cool with a little sex since they were seducing the first set of guards.

Well wouldn't you be if you knew your days on this earth were numbered?

GD Anastasia asked for a new set of shoes from the trunks family had brought with them. Jailer replied shoes she was wearing would last the rest of her life. Message sent and received.

There parents were complete idiots. When the tide of revolution comes. don't wait for your enemies to round you up. Always send the children away, with loads of cash, preferably with a grandmother or spinster aunt.

Even the Iranian royal family fucked up, though they left with their heads held high, they forgot to grab the fabulous royal jewels.

My suitcase would have been loaded with Iran's crown jewels as a way to fund my post-royal lifestyle. The Shah left with a couple if million in western banks, but if I go, the loot goes too. If the new government wants the jewels they can buy it off of me.

QEII’s parents didn’t send her and her sister away when the UK started getting bombed in WWII. It worked out for them, but yeah it was a gamble

I get your point r96, but it wasn't a revolution, which means the children could get away by the time Nazi tanks started rolling into London. A quick trip north then to a ship bound for Cananda would have done the trick. A revolution leaves you surrounded by your enemies, which is why it's much more dangerous than an invasion from a hostile foreign power.

When revolution broke out and Nicholas II abdicated all the Romanov children had come down with measles , and thus Empress Alexandra wouldn't have them moved from Tsarsko Selo. Had the Empress joined other members of the Romanov family and moved out of Saint Petersburg to estates elsewhere (eventually the Crimea), things might have ended differently.

It was a complicated and furious business involving France, Russia, GB and Spain, but in the end things dragged on too long and Alexander Kerensky's government fell. He barely escaped Russia with his life in the end.

As for Nicholas II only really Spain wanted him and his family in the end. France refused the Romanovs asylum because the Empress was "German by birth and sentiment", and and also a hysteric. The Emperor was seen as weak, pussy whipped, and a fallen tyrant.

George V didn't want them in his kingdom either for pretty much the same reasons. Having already been forced to change his family name and make other changes to distance himself from German relations and his own background, HM could hardly risk stirring pools of republicanism by granting asylum to a fallen tyrant and his domineering German wife.

Empress Alexandra idolized Marie-Antoinette, she even had a portrait of the queen in her mauve boudoir. People warned her it was not a good omen, but the Empress wouldn't hear; in the end she and her family died pretty much the same way as the Bourbons; imprisoned, humiliated, then executed by their own people.

[R97]

For anointed sovereigns there is something humiliating about running away from their own country, revolution or not.

Louis XVI had ample time to flee Versailles before that mob arrived. Lord knows large part of his court (including The Aunts) did so; and the king even tried to get Marie-Antoinette to leave with their children, but he wasn't going anywhere. MA thus wouldn't go and neither did the children.

Mary, Queen of Scots fled (imprisonment) in Scotland only to end up spending the last 20 years of her life as Elizabeth I's prisoner and finally being executed.

Basically r98, if you are going to be a coldhearted bitch of a consort, be a smart and politically-savvy coldhearted bitch of a consort. AKA Catherine the Great.

Having read extensively about Catherine and her royal contemporaries, I have to say that much of her fame was undeserved or unearned. She was called The Great because her court was brilliand and luxurious not because she did anything to improve her subject's lives. And she was a major grade cunt. Her husband's aunt, Emrpess Elizabeth, tho a cunt herself was actually a better ruler. She abolished the death penalty (the first nation/political entity to do so in history, I believe). Tho her punishments were very harsh, she kept her word and didn't execute no one in all her years in power. Catherine had a previous emperor, Ivan VI executed on a flimsy pretext.

Also, several of Catherine's contemporary rulers were FAR and MUCH better rulers themselves and truly ¨enlightened¨ or ¨liberal¨. But because their courts weren't as brilliant as Catherine's, they and what they did for their subjects is mostly forgotten now. Two come to mind, Carlos III of Spain, who by all accounts was a very decent fellow, actually vastly improved his subjects lot in life. Regarding Spain, Carlos continued what his half-brother, Ferdinand VI, started. Ferdinand hated wars and against all odds and pressures, didn't involve Spain in any war for the entirety of his reign. Sadly, all of Ferdinand and Carlos' policies and efforts were destroyed by his succesor Carlos IV and his wife Maria Luisa of Parma. These two were idiots and assholes. Spain and her citizens would not have a comparable level of develpment to the rest of Europe for 200 years or the 1990's or so.

The other ¨good¨ ruler was Joseph II of Austria. He was a no nonsense type of guy, very frugal (watch the movie Amadeus; his frugalilty actually prevented Mozart to actually find a patron on his home) completely devoted to cares of government and the welfare of his subjects.

r99 I get that, but in every instance the children could have been sent to their mother's foreign courts. The monarch would have been politically tricky, but the children and consort could have been justified. I commend MA for sticking by her man, but she and Louis let their egos and belief in the Divine Right of Kings put their young children at risk. The irony is that his brothers left stage right, bumbled around Europe as impoverished former princes and eventually an exiled King, but were able to return to the throne.

It's easy to point fingers now, but under the guidance of Louis Stanislas Xavier (Louis XVIII), France could have had a nearly 30 year old Louis-Charles (Louis XVII) as their king. Instead, they had the efficient Louis XVIII for only 10 short years. Sadly, he didn't have a son of his own to teach the balancing act of power. Louis-Charles could have been that boy (now I sound like Kamala). Thus the throne was left to his foolish ultraconservative younger brother (Charles X) that instantly spoiled everything as his brother predicted. Then onto a cousin who was the son of a man that voted to execute Louis XVI.

Louis XVI not only doomed his government, he took away the Bourbon's last shot for a younger monarch to ease into the role, causing more upheaval for the doomed Bourbons.

And two of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette's children were saved from a similar fate by dying young. The dauphin during the Revolution was actually their second son. Their first one, born in 1781, actually died in 1789 in the days just prior the French Revolution. Their 2nd daughter, only lived around 1 year.

I bet that if their oldest son had survived he would have been guillotined. And their 2nd daughter probably would have died of malnurishment.

Bla bla bla, history. Bitches can't stay on topic without bloviating.

We're dissussing a TV series, not the entire history of every royal family on earth.

It's a pretty four hours, but Mirren's award-bait won't work. Catherine was a despot in a hoop skirt. Potempkin's a cement-faced blowhard. She was a horrible woman who let her pussy dictate her acts. Her ego and impulses echo our current U.S. idiocy.

Do me self and me large anaconda make an appearance? Cheerio.

I liked it, but Clarke is not on Mirren’s level. Few men are. The love of her life needed one of those men

No one has mentioned The Scarlet Empress with Marlene Dietrich? The scene where she storms the palace and rides up the stair on horseback is a can't-miss.

Scarlet Empress was a bit darker which I for one sort of liked when compared to "The Rise Of Catherine the Great".

Sam Jaffe played Grand Duke Peter as the imbecile and increasingly mad person he was; which gives more insight as to why and how Catherine rose to power.

Still overall the film is ultimate camp fest; how could it not be with Marlene Dietrich

Two years later Hollywood gave the world "Marie-Antoinette" starring Norma Shearer.

r109 I hate how they just threw on random costumes and 30's hair to an 18th century historical drama. What trash.

I menat r108

[R99]

You are missing the point.

Once Louis XVI was murdered (or executed depending upon how you see things), his son and heir became at once Louis XVII, King of France and Navarre far as MA, her daughter, the Bourbons, royalists and anyone else still loyal to the monarchy. This would include every king, prince, monarch, royal or imperial court across Europe. There was just NO way Robespierre and the revolutionary government were going to let the young king loose in Europe or even out of prison to become a focal point for restoration of monarch in France. More so when the Duke of Brunswick was leading invading armies into France, and nearly every one if not all royal houses of Europe were doing the same.

Soon as the canon fire announced death of Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette and Marie Thérèse of France (her daughter) placed the young Louis-Charles (now Louis XVII) onto a table and along with others in their rooms/cell deeply bowed to the new king. This was promptly reported to the revolutionary committees and Robespierre which then after deciding what should be done, made the decision to remove the boy king and his sister from their mother's charge. The rest we know and has been laid out as above. Marie-Antoinette held off the guards who came to take her children for better part of an hour or longer. It was only when they threatened to murder them both on spot that the queen finally relented.

Robespierre and others could have simply murdered Louis-Charles outright; but the spectacle of sending a child to the guillotine was more than even they were willing to risk. That being said meanwhile elsewhere in France infants and children were being murdered by scores (see Nantes Drownings, and murders at Lyon).

Early on there had been some talk about exchanging MA and her children for various ransoms with other foreign courts (notably Russia), but it never was going to happen. Just as Lenin played games with Germany in run up to seeking a separate peace Russia would release the "German women" (Empress Alexandra and her daughters) and allow them to go to Germany. It was all a ruse and IIRC the Romanovs were already dead during much or part of those negotiations. In any event as with France, Russia under Lenin wasn't going to let Nicholas II, his family or any of the Romanovs out of that country alive if it could be helped.

Having murdered Louis XVI, Marie-Antoinette by the guillotine, and via neglect/cruelty Louis XVII the Terror took some pity and left Marie Therese alive but imprisoned . She wouldn't find out about her mother and brother until nearly two years later prior to her release as part of a prisoner swap with Austria. Ironically one of the famous French prisoners returned to France under that deal was Jean-Baptiste Drouet, the man instrumental in sounding alarm in Varennes which lead to the RF being captured and returned to Paris, and their ultimate fates.

R107 Marlene had a very pretty man as her lover in that camp-fest.

[R110]

When you consider MGM spent huge sums on MA especially the costumes, it does seem rather odd they cheaped out in other areas.

Many of those MGM costumes for MA were reused for subsequent films

Others are in private or museum collections.

Watching MGM's "Marie-Antoinette" is bit like watching the geriatric "My Fair Lady" where there's only performer under the age of 55.

The one interesting thing about "Antoinette" is that MGM took a chance on the young actor who was starring as Oscar Wilde in a 7 month run on the New York stage.

I don't suppose anyone else wanted to play the character who was presented as a gibbering fool.

[quote]She was smart, clever, conniving, and ruthless, and had no qualms about using her snatch to get what she wanted.

Ummmmm, she was a queen, she didn't have to use her snatch for anything. In fact, it was the men at her court who used their dick to grow rich at her expense.

Speaking of royalty and museum collections; whatever reservations or thoughts royal courts of Europe and or their nobility had about events in revolutionary France, it didn't stop them from snapping up furniture and other possessions of the Bourbons.

An auction took place between 25 August 1793 and 11 August 1794. The furnishings and art of Versailles Palace, including the furniture, mirrors, baths and kitchen equipment, were sold in seventeen thousand lots by revolutionary government.

So keen was the revolutionary government to disperse and be rid of any memory of the Bourbons/autocratic government that they preferred to sell the furniture and furnishings of Versailles to foreigners. To sweeten the deal it was advertised in brochures or whatever that such buyers could take their purchases out of France tax free; they came in droves from all over the world.

Much of Buckingham palace contains furniture from Versailles (then Prince of Wales working via agents took away things by several ship loads).

A period poster advertising the sale of the furniture and effects of the person referred to as the "So-Called Queen" (Marie Antoinette) took place on Sunday, August 25, 1793 - seven months after the execution of her husband and two months before her own death.

Besides European royalty and aristocracy the Americans were there in force as well. In years since many families acquired more pieces via private sales or at auctions.

France has put in place laws against export of cultural or historic items such as art, furniture, etc.., but if someone doesn't know what they've got or looks at things carefully it can slip through.

Royal residences were inventoried in what is called the Journal du Garde Meuble for the years 1666-1792, and pieces from Versailles and elsewhere do have identifying markings. So in theory it should be easy to spot such things, but again not everyone examines things carefully. Others (such as antique dealers, auction houses, private sellers) fear if brought to attention of French government they will claim the thing as part of France's cultural heritage .

France has spent vast sums, and continues to spend; French government recently received a legacy of 20 million USD from an heiress with stipulation it only be spent on acquiring and returning former furniture of Versailles to the palace.

Making that job slightly easier is that fussy period dark antique furniture is falling out of fashion with younger generations. Museums in USA often already have storerooms or collections sufficient and don't want any more. IIRC the MET has put out the word "no more French furniture...".

Well R118, exactly how do you think a young, untested German princess convinced a bunch of Russian nobles to stage a coup on her behalf? They certainly had other options.

r120 She was having an affair with ONE of the coupmongers, Gregory Orlov. She didn't need to open her legs to an entire military unit. This is real life, not porn, for God's sake.

An outtake from the new Catherine movie.

Yes, Catherine used her snatch to grab the throne in the first place, the poor thing must have been desperate after being married to that half-wit!

But once Catherine had the throne, the snatch became more of a liability than a help. Its enthusiasm for dick was a political liability, it gave her political enemies ammunition they could use against her, and allowed her worthless lovers to gain money and power they didn't deserve. Catherine's reign would have gone more smoothly if her tastes hadn't been so Dataloungerish.

[quote]Yes, Catherine used her snatch to grab the throne in the first place, the poor thing must have been desperate after being married to that half-wit!

She was 14 when she was chosen as Peter's bride... She didn't use anything, she was a pawn at that point.

[R118]

There was no widespread revolt by Russian nobles to murder Peter III. Rather pretty much a conspiracy by Catherine, and Alexei Orlov along with his brother Grigory . Regiments loyal to the Czarina provided the muscle.

Long story short Peter III got wind of Catherine's plots to have him abdicate (or killed) and acted first by having one of the conspirators arrested. Once the Czarina got news of that event she knew she had to move fast or she'd be next imprisoned, or worse. Catherine had Peter III arrested and the Tsar was forced to sign papers of abdication leaving Catherine as the undisputed ruler of Russia . Remember by now Catherine was the mother of the heir, so under that scenerio it wasn't so far fetched for a foreign princess to become monarch.

Catherine quickly moved to consolidate power by removing one of the closest rivals to throne; Ivan VI of Russia.

As for rest of it; Catherine didn't need sexuality to hold onto power once she took the throne. Peter III and his pro Prussian leanings was so widely despised that many were happy to see him removed as Tsar. His death later on was given as a heart attack or something else than murder.

Yes, R124, but she was 33 when she and her lover siezed power.

r125 Did you mean that for r120? He's the one who thinks that Catherine had a bukkake party with some Russian soldiers to encourage a coup against her husband.

r126 I misunderstood the post I was responding to. I had the impression it was insinuating that Catherine became a consort to the king by opening her legs.

Still, saying that she had an affair with Orlov in order to manipulate him into launching a coup is an overstretch. She was a depressive loner when she fell for Orlov. I doubt she was thinking of a coup when they began romancing. And they continued their affair after Peter was dethroned. It all ended after Catherine decided enough was enough with Orlov's cheating - he had begun an affair with a 12-year-old cousin or something like that.

When it comes to Catherine and men, she was more often than not the one whose trust was abused; more of a victim of manipulation than a perpetrator. The only exception being Peter, of course.

how many queens must this old broad play fore she retires???? take a nap momma.

John Lodge in The Scarlett Empress. At a screening back in the 70s, when he appeared onscreen, there was an audible gasp from the women in the audience.

A more contemporary (well, 1930's) John Lodge.

'There parents were complete idiots.'

Oh dear, the irony

those ugly grand duchesses should have been grateful for the dick they did get

R130 R131 He was stunningly handsome man and in the movie brought in raw masculinity.

At the L.A. premiere...

Starts tonight on HBO.

R77 A lot of things. The biggest was fear. She couldn’t effectively rule Russia, no one could. The country was too big, too diverse and the people were at best brutal. Her only saftey ascRusdian rulers learned before and after her, was the complete and total subjugation of the peasants, and this meant surgeon. Also, serfs could be given away to the hoards of military who kept her in power and who would have tossed her into the fortress for anyone who could give them a better deal.

Later, there would be a major revolt that almost succeeded. That pretty much put and end to all her pretenses at enlightenment and she became an unapologetic despot.

R136

That was the biggest argument Nicholas II and most of the Romanovs (but not all) had for not going with a constitutional monarchy. Russia was simply too vast and make up of so many varied peoples it could only be ruled (or governed if you will), by a firm hand on wheel, or boots on necks.

When you look at what replaced the Romanovs (Lenin, Stalin, etc...) needle didn't move far. There was a bit of a break under Gorbachev, but Putin has brought it all back.

So, did anyone catch the first episode on HBO?

r30 Makeup and lighting and CG, dear. It's a whole thing in TV and movies...

I love Helen and historical drama. Can’t wait to see it tonight.

"he was being shown their faces from those painted portraits you'd keep on your table. It hadn't even occurred to me that that was the only way you could show someone how a person looks back then"

It worked out very well for me...

R138. What do you mean 'It's a whole thing in TV and movies'?

The Russians allowing them to film on location is about the only good thing they've done in ages.

Only 4 episodes; too rushed.

Watched the first episode. Helen Mirren, in her 70s, is playing a Catherine in her 30s (as of this ep at least) and it is very distracting. Like when her son is supposed to be turning 18 it takes you out of the story because she looks like his grandmother. Not the mother of a teenager.

Outside of that it was beautiful to look at but the writing seems very exposition-y and on the nose.

I was excited but left the episode feeling disappointed, I'll finish it as it is only 4 episodes.

[quote]the writing seems very exposition-y and on the nose

It really does but it's a bitch to convey historical events most audiences will be unfamiliar with any other way, I guess. The show would benefit so much from having one or two more episodes.

If the writing seems very exposition-y they need to have some inter-titles or one of those off-screen narrators.

Though, of course, movie-makers like David Lean and Hitchcock said inter-titles and off-screen narrators are signs of a bad film-maker.

Yeah, narration would cheapen it immediately. Those exposition cards at the beginning can't be too extensive or people would perceive it as a chore, and you can't place them in the middle of episodes either because it kills the pace and is, like narration, inelegant.

'Catherine the Great' needs an on-screen narrator like Yevgraf Zhivago who stood on the sidelines watching and commenting over 40 years for so.

Narration could work with some historical dramas. Mostly IMHO biographies where an imperial or a royal person was telling things from their perspective.

I'd like to see that sort of treatment for Marie-Antoinette, Mary, Queen of Scots, Catherine of Aragon, and perhaps a few others. Would love to get inside their heads to "hear" what they were thinking as events unfolded.

R145

Historical drama series that span a season or more are so expensive, doubt we'll see them in great number again. well not unless someone with deep pockets offers to underwrite.

Downton Abbey was a hit that surprised and out stripped most imaginations. Back in the day British television gave us excellent drama series like Elizabeth R, Edward the King, etc... But those were made in different budget times.

Love Mirren, but agree that she is way too old to be playing Catherine at this point in her life. They should have told it in flashbacks using an actress who was more believable as a 30-something

I had no problem with Mirren, but hard to believe she was in love with Clarke. She needed an actor with It, and he doesn't.

Talk about a mess. With this level of writing, HBO should have sent this over to Showtime or STARZ. It appears to be another pretty dress period piece.

1. Helen, as stated above, is miss-casted. I know they needed a big name to secure the financing, but they missed the mark. She bring NOTHING to the role as queen. She appears to act more like a random wealthy noble, then an empress. Where is that iron will from The Queen? Her age aside, she doesn't appear to have match the gravity of the character's position.

2. This is shot like a teen drama. The freaking Empress is having pages of conversation outside of a church, while people walk past her without acknowledging her presence? Not even a tip of your hate to the reigning Queen? And servants, like her guards (turned lover) and that maid, speaking when not spoke to (What should I do with the papers? Guards don't talk) . Besides Helen, the cast and writing don't give the atmosphere of a monarchy. Even people in the crown, set in the 1950s, give their monarch more deference and respect, than the extras and principles in CTG.

3. I think the story started too late in Catherine's reign. They should have started before she disposed of her husband, but that would have required a different actress. This is just like that other disappointing show, 'Victoria'.

4. Jason Clark as her lover, Grigory Potemkin, is historically similar but not much for modern eyes. He appears transparent in his quest for her and they crying about his love for Catherine was so fake. He may be playing a game for power, but the acting/script is so on the nose (as others have said) that they are choosing the most uninteresting path towards their plot maneuvers.

[quote]She appears to act more like a random wealthy noble, then an empress. Where is that iron will from The Queen? Her age aside, she doesn't appear to have match the gravity of the character's position.

I disagree on this point. I actually felt terrified from the first second she opened her mouth, and I'm a grown-ass man. She has imperial presence coming out of her ass. And when she went from berating her son (in the second episode?) with the most below the belt remarks possible, and then switched to performative motherhood in the space of a second in order to not push him away too much so he won't get any ideas... transcendent.

As to your second point, I don't know how nobles and servants behaved in her court at the time. Might have been more relaxed than in other countries, because of the distance? Also, weren't the Russians supposed to be more "savage" and poorer than other European kingdoms and empires? She even says at one point that her son's German regiment might be better equipped and their boots might be more polished, but her troops fight with their hearts, or something like that. So this obviously wasn't the richest empire around.

We are only on E1 in the States so I hope it gets better, but it seems like a silly mess. Style means a lot, I was finish up with Secession and am a major fan of The Crown, so I came in with a different set of expectations.

R153

IMHO Louise Dresser who played Empress Elizabeth in "the Scarlet Empress" got role about right.

For those who've never seen; the 1996 movie "Catherine the Great" with an all star cast of European actors.

r155 I know you're not directly comparing them, but those two shows are set in modern times, so the dialogue is necessarily modern as well. You can't go overboard with that here because it would be too jarring for the times it's set in.

[quote] This is shot like a teen drama. The freaking Empress is having pages of conversation outside of a church, while people walk past her without acknowledging her presence? Not even a tip of your hate to the reigning Queen? And servants, like her guards (turned lover) and that maid, speaking when not spoke to (What should I do with the papers? Guards don't talk)

R153, HBO's writers are increasingly clueless & hopeless at evoking believable relations between historical people. In their previous show, HBO portrayed a group of low-ranking miners in Gorbachev's era (1980s) as not even acknowledging the presence of a visiting top-ranking Minister of Energy (of the entire country). They didn't even say "hello, sir" to the high-ranking Minister, and instead just talked over him and snarled back at him, even threatening him with assault and physically covered him in coal-soot.

It seems HBO's writers seriously don't understand how hierarchy and rank works in historical societies. Especially in Eastern societies. If a low-ranking miner assaulted & put his hands on a top-ranking Minister - that miner would face disciplinary action immediately. If someone didn't curtsy while walking past a reigning Empress - they would be reminded to show respect to the Empress immediately.

Problem is that HBO's writers often don't understand how to convey "period atmosphere". I remember how even in Game of Thrones, one of the final scenes was the brand-new (quasi-medieval) Queen giving a speech to her army. Except the writers put her on a far-away raised platform, completely out of ear-shot of the troops. The writers were obviously reaching for a clumsy, overly cliché parallel with Adolf & his infamous podium speeches in front of troops. But the writers forgot that Adolf had a microphone and speakers, lol. No person in pre-electricity, quasi-medieval times could be heard mumbling anything from a pedestal sooo far away. You need a mic for that.

HBO are ignorant philistines who re-write history to suit the market.

They are going re-film "Black Narcissus" with an all-Black cast.

German princess Kate the Second should have been played by a fatter lady. Someone like a young Kathy Bates would have been perfect. A modest-sized actress like Mirren (munching on a celery stick) cannot convey's Kate's girth.

And Kate's big body is important to understand her character - because it shows her insatiable, often reckless appetite in EVERYTHING: literature, French philosophy, COCK, land conquests, luxury, power - and food. Her gluttony & corpulent physique was symbolic of her inner character flaws.

R159, I noticed that at the time, too. It really took me out of the moment.,

Thank you r159. That scene was ridiculous.

Also when Catherine asked for that guard to be watched or placed in custody, it would have happened. But somehow an impoverished guard, stationed at some remote prison, on an island, makes his way to St. Petersburg? Then he is basically lobbying treasonous accusations, about the Queen, to her own guards? He does all of this on those church steps at the very exit that she'd be walking out of. Then sulks behind two people, giving a monarch a death stare before running off to do God knows what. Like come.

Even the guard's execution was handled clumsily. Catherine's Prime Minister knows how ruthless she is supposed to be, yet he acts shocked that she didn't give so nobody guard a pardon. Especially odd after the PM pushed her to kill Nicholas' cousin (Prisoner Number One)? The show suffers from saying, rather than showing. The Crown and GoT work better because they weave the side plots back to the main character, but showing other character's motives which builds an emotional bond with views and adds levity to the main storyline.

Why do you think networks write shows r159?

They don't. "HBO" didnt write this. They weren't even the sole production company, they came on board as the american partners for what was originally a Sky Atlantic production.

I once read an essay about Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, and it was all about the logistics of where he might have stood, and how he might have been heard. How far away, and so forth. I don’t recall much about it, except, that the central point was that it would have been very hard for him to have been heard by “great multitudes” and it would have to have been a smaller crowd than we would normally consider to be “great multitudes”.

On the other hand, I think I heard once that when there was a speaker with such large crowds, that they may have used secondary speakers to repeat what they heard, like relay stations. Has anyone else ever heard of such a thing?

^ The idea of secondary speakers sounds feasible to me.

I have arguments with people who claim this movie speech is exaggerated, hammy and theatrical. I tell them that public speaking outdoors (especially if you a fanatical Muhammudan) without microphones requires you to be loud and exaggerated.

The scene on the church steps was ridiculous. There's no way the Empress and Autocrat of all the Russians would just be standing there without an entire retinue and consort of personal guards, considering she was supposedly fearing plots to depose her at every turn. The only thing they've gotten right is that her son supposedly hated her, and she had very low regard for him.

Catherine of Russia, that potentate,

Knew that her job was to fascinate.

Some people called her a reprobate,

But still she's known as Kate the Great.

To sessions of Congress she wouldn't go,

Never heckled the crowd on the radio.

She never would mix in affairs of state,

But in affairs of the heart, how Kate was great!

I think it's Mirren consistent smiling, maybe she thinks it makes her appear like the 30-something monarch she is supposed to portray, but it's odd.

I understand they needed a big name but they couldn't have found any other famous actress who is in their 30s? They've essentially aged up the character by 40 years, which is ridiculous.

What is Kate Winslet doing these days?

I didn't care about the age gap at all. They're all British actors and extras speaking English, so I just extended that suspension of disbelief some more.

It didn’t help them any, R142: they showed her funeral taking place in Kazan Cathedral, which was completed 15 years after her death. It’s still better, of course, than Lenin’s mausoleum on the Red Square in Last Czars, but what was wrong with the Peter and Paul Fortress? Not to mention they showed her grandson at her funeral as a little boy in short pants, while in fact he was by then already 19 and married.

It obviously helped them quite a bit because that palace was stunning. And the vast majority of the audience won't care about minor historical inconsistencies.

Also Jason Clarke is beautiful.

Jason Clarke has given some wonderful performances, but I don't find him beautiful. I'm so split about him because good actors should get parts, not just pretty boys, but I'm not amazed with any of the acting in this show so it might as well have been someone hotter.

I think Olivia Coleman has the body (plus a lot of padding) and ability to really capture a CTG character. But after playing 2 queens and an Oscar, I doubt they could afford her. Tell me that picture doesn't look more like a CTG, then the skinnier Helen.

Olivia Colman^

[quote]they showed her grandson at her funeral as a little boy in short pants, while in fact he was by then already 19 and married.

Hot.

E2 was an improvement, but they still had Jason Clark running away literally in tears, "I'm not, happy!", like a hormonal teenager. Then they had him almost leave, so some hotter guys could get airtime, only to sulk around the courtyard until Catherine came out beg him to stay. They've made him into a very unstable man-child of a character.

Catherine's daughter in law repeatedly refuses to curtsey to the Queen, actually bowing is all over the place with this show. Grigory Potemkin didn't even bow to the crown prince. I feel like daughters in law would never be so bold. That's a fastest way to have a Queen make your life a living hell. Catherine the Great doesn't sound like a bitch that would accept that behavior from a princess.

So if Episode 1 was a D+, this one might just scratch a C in my book.

In E1 when they said a gorgeous man was found wandering the grounds, I imagined it was someone like this hunk, we were introduced to in E2. I'd order him to be in my bedchamber ever night.

Actually Catherine was known to smile a lot, so they got that right. But yeah, all 4 Empress regnants of Russia (Catherine I, Anna, Elizabeth, and Catherine II) grew up to become extremely fat and as someone upthread said, INSATIABLE.

Also, Russia was less refined as the rest of Europe, but they were extremely rich, they were like the noveau riche of the 18th Century. By the time of Catherine's reign everyone, including the Hapsburgs, wanted to marry into them (they were THAT fabulously wealthy). Cathrine's eldest grand daughter got married to an Austrian Archduke (she died in dhildbirth like two years later). She was given such fabulous jewels that the Austrian Empress got extremely jealous that she made the poor girl's life a living hell.

I yam not heppy.

FYI R173 the palace was shot in Lithuania.

I am enjoying the show, but find Mirren's age distracting.

She looks like Potemkin's mother -- and her other lovers' grandmother.

I gave up on this. I could get past the horrendous miscasting of Mirren but the writing is just damn dull. You don't get any sense of what made Catherine interesting or formidable. Plus, too many stupid scenes of "the army could replace you at any time, why don't you go stand over here by yourself, or go into this bathhouse with no one to guard you."

If I hadn't read a biography on Catherine several years ago, I would have no idea what was going on.

Yes, the miniseries is terrible disappointment. Pity.

A quality miniseries about Catherine the Great would've been fantastic.

acknowledged by most critics as a piece of shit.

helen how could u???

The writing is super dull. Somehow The Crown turns a story about some people sitting around in their palaces, with no wars or battles, into an entertaining 10 hours. It does this show a disservice to put Helen in almost every scene. She has no real support characters, beyond her lover, to build up the suspense. Even the crazy usurper felt like an extremely distant threat. Whoever funded this show, before HBOs purchase, really wasted their money.

Too much about the cocks she gets fucked by, too little about how she ruled an empire.

This is terrible. Everything about it is terrible. I coud not watch it. And I love history nd historical dramas. I love Helen Mirren. But no.

Granny porn.

The swearing took me out of the period. Apparently the word fuck was invented in 1475 so it is historically correct to use it but it still feels modern and unimaginative writing to me.

All the English didn't take you out of the period? Just the word "fuck"?