Nicholas and Alexandra

Listed below are the panels at the Organization of American Historians Convention in Washington, D.C. (April 5-8) that deal with film and related media: "Ecological Tom Foolery: The Dust Bowl ofthe 1930's" featuring: Pare Lorenz, The Plow That Broke The Plains Woodie Guthrie, "Dust Bowl Ballads" "Workshop in Historians Use of Illustrative Material" you are invited to bring flyers and handouts. "Popular Culture and the Social History of Black America" papers will be presented on: "The Negro in Early American Film" "Blues: A Mirror for the Thirties" London conference British historians and film archivists are organizing a conference on the uses of film in the study and teaching ofhistory to be held during the summer of 1972 in London. Entitled "Archive Film in the Teaching and Study of History" the conference will be held in the Imperial War Museum from June 28th to 29th. Historians, film makers, librarians and critics will view a selection ofrecently made archive or compilation films based on the wars ofthe 20th century and their effects upon British life and society. American participation is invited and for further information, please write: Yvonne Renouf, British Universities Film Council, 72 Dean Street, London, W.l. The American Documentary "The American Documentary" was the title of a conference held at Brandeis University on Feb. 19-21 . Among the speakers were Leo Hurwitz, Arthur Barron, Richard Leacock and Martin Jackson who spoke on "Film as a Source Material for Historians." Hugh Evans ofthe University Film Study Center at Brandeis and the co-ordinators ofthe conference, Alan Jacobs and Stephen Ujlaki, deserve credit for putting on a successful program on a very snowy weekend. Ethno Graphic Film Program Temple University will hold its fifth annual Anthropological and Documentary Film Conference on March 8-11. The conference seeks to bring together persons interested in film, video and sound tape for the portrayal ofthe human condition. FILM REVIEWS Film reviews are intended toprovide historical and teachers with critical evaluations of films both in current distribution and those suitablefor classroom use. Reviews of currentfeatures will be assigned to specialists in the givenfield, while all members are invited to contribute shorter critiques offilms they have used in the classroom. Each 19 issue ofFilm & History M'ill cany reviews ofboth kinds and we welcomeyour comments. Unless otherwise noted, allfilms reviewed here are 16mm. Nicholas and Alexandra By Gerald Herman As a historian viewing Nicholas and Alexandra, I left the theater with a profound sense ofambivalence concerning its content and utility. The portrayal ofNicholas himself-weak and vacillating, unintelligent and stubborn, henpecked and wholly dependent on his wife—may surprise many who are conditioned to expect a ruthless autocrat. But to anyone who has read the "Nicky-Sunny" letters (some ofwhich become the dialogue that passes between them in the film), Michael Jayston's portrayal rings essentially true. Janet Suaman's Alexandra, on the other hand, struck me as, ifanything, a little too sane. Her devotion to Rasputin and to religious and political orthodoxy left her bigoted and intransigent to an extent that makes Ms. Suzman's portrait overly sympathetic for my taste. This I see as a key factor in my ambivalence, but more about that later. The sumptuous scenery ofthe various courts and royal retreats worked well to show the opulence and isolation ofthe royal family and Prince Yusupov's dacha works equally well to portray the decadence and lassitude ofthe last generation ofthe old Russian elite. This scenery is far more effective than that meant to portray the wretched condition ofthe Russian underclass before 1905 (presumably in the Putilov iron works), or the carnage and waste ofthe First World War, which by any standard was the proximate cause ofthe Revolution. Except for two short scenes surrounding the 1905 revolution and the assassination of Stolypin in 1911, and two ofthe war itself, one showing the condition ofthe army even early in the war (when General Samsonov committed suicide following the failure ofthe 1914 offensive-why the film makes him an unnamed colonel, I'll never know) and another showing the breakdown ofauthority later on as two soldiers shoot their officer, we are only told about the misery that the Romanov's wrought...