{Being my third and final look at the life, times, and legacy of Grigory Rasputin.}
It should come as no surprise that Rasputin, a man whose life was filled (allegedly) with sex, violence, and palace intrigue, found his way not just from Siberia to Moscow but all the way to Hollywood—not in person, alas, but through the narrative of his life and through his larger-than-life reputation. As a result, the motion picture industry learned a valuable lesson in how to avoid charges of libel.
In 1932, having acquired film rights to Alfred Klabund’s 1927 novel Rasputin, MGM Studios signed the three Barrymores—John, Ethel, and Lionel—to star in a film titled Rasputin and the Empress. Lionel Barrymore would play Rasputin, John would play the role of his assassin, and Ethel, of course, in her first appearance in a “talking” motion picture, would play Tsarina Alexandra. Though the plot utilized the confessional memoirs of Prince Felix Yusupov, the man who claimed to have planned and executed the murder of Rasputin, the filmmakers took numerous liberties with the known facts. Most egregiously, the movie portrays Yusupov’s wife, Irina (renamed “Princess Natasha” on screen) as having met Rasputin and having been either seduced or raped by him, none of which had happened in real life. Outraged, the Yusupovs sued MGM for libel.
The ensuing trial took place in 1934, as explained here by Rod Hollier:
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Limited produced a film in which a man named Rasputin brought about the destruction of Russia but was subsequently murdered by Prince Chegodieff and others. In the film, a combination of both fiction and real-life facts, Princess Natasha had sexual relations with Prince Chegodieff, one the murderers of Rasputin, but was also raped by Rasputin. In real life, Princess Irina Youssoupoff was married to Prince Youssoupoff, the man who assisted in the murder of Rasputin. The imputation is that Princess Irina Youssoupoff was raped by Rasputin.
The jury found in favor of Youssoupoff.
The judge concurred. According to Hollier, “Lord Justice Slesser stated: ‘Not only is a matter defamatory if it brings the plaintiff into hatred, ridicule, or contempt, by reason of some moral discredit on her part, but also if it tends to make the plaintiff shunned or avoided and without any moral discredit or her behalf. One may, I think, take judicial notice of the fact that a lady of whom it has been said that she has been ravished, albeit against her will, has suffered in social reputation and opportunities of receiving respectful consideration of the world. I, for myself, cannot see that from the plaintiff's point of view it matters in the least whether this libel suggests that she has been seduced or ravished. The question whether she is or is not the more or the less moral seems to me immaterial in considering this question whether she has been defamed.’”
Back then, a woman’s reputation was still worth something; damages awarded to Princess Irina amounted to, in today’s dollars, over $25 million.
The Yusupov lawsuit did not lead to greater accuracy in Hollywood storytelling, but to the inclusion of a boilerplate “all persons fictitious” disclaimer that now accompanies all movies: something along the lines of “The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this production are fictitious. Any resemblance of film characters to actual persons (living or deceased) is coincidental. No identification of characters with actual persons (living or deceased) is intended or should be inferred.” That disclaimer, however worded, does not serve as a “get out of libel free” card, but it does make it harder for lawsuits against filmmakers and studios to succeed.
Despite the inauspicious precedent and lasting effects of Rasputin and the Empress, Hollywood took another shot (so to speak) at Rasputin in 1966 with Hammer Films’ Rasputin the Mad Monk, starring the incomparable Christopher Lee as Rasputin. The movie focused on “Rasputin's terrifying powers both to work magic and to seduce women,” elements which cinema audiences do seem to enjoy. The writers disguised the various supporting characters sufficiently that no lawsuits were filed, and no reputations were impugned—except, of course, Rasputin’s.
The cinematic lure of Rasputin persists. 1 In 1996, Alan Rickman and Greta Scacchi starred in a TV movie, Rasputin: Dark Servant of Destiny. The two lead actors, and the show itself, won several awards (Emmys and Golden Globes); Sir Ian McKellen, in the role of Nicholas II, was praised for his performance as well. In 2014, Russian filmmakers produced an eight-part TV miniseries, Rasputin, with a narrative structured around the Russian government's investigation of Rasputin's murder. More recently, the 2019 Netflix mini-series The Last Czars re-told Nicholas and Alexandra's story in what one critic dubbed "a surreal Wikipedia entry brought to life". Rasputin was portrayed by Ben Cartwright, which no doubt came as a shock to loyal viewers of Bonanza (not to mention, to Adam, Hoss, and Little Joe).
No movies or TV shows have been made about the life of poor Khioniya Guseva.
________________________________________
1 The Lure of Rasputin would be an excellent title for a book and/or movie!
Sources:
Rasputin and the Empress - Wikipedia
Rasputin the Mad Monk - Wikipedia
(1) Why All Films Have This Disclaimer - YouTube
Rod Hollier, Case Summary: Youssoupoff v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Limited (1934) — The Law Project
Thanks to the magic of YouTube, both Rasputin and the Empress and Rasputin the Mad Monk can be watched in all their libelous glory: (1) rasputin the mad monk 1966 full movie - YouTube
You can also find Rasputin: Dark Servant of Destiny on YouTube: (1) "Rasputin: Dark Servant of Destiny" - Complete 1996 TV-Movie - YouTube
The Last Czars is available on Netflix; the Russian-made Rasputin can be watched on Amazon Prime.
Posted by: |