User Reviews

1934 was a strange year. While there have been relatively few films about Catherine the Great of Russia, apparently 1934 was an exception. Not only were there two big-budget films about her, but both covered the exact same period of her life--when she first comes to Russia to marry and ending when she assumes control of the nation. Of the two, my personal favorite was "The Scarlet Empress" with Marlene Dietrich. But, "The Rise of Catherine the Great" is still a pretty good film.

Now I must stop for a minute to talk about the shortcomings of BOTH films. History, they say, is made by the winners and historians at the time seemed to spin Catherine's usurping the throne and the 'accidental death' of her husband as necessary because he was evil and insane. However, this is not the view of everyone--and many historians are just as convinced that she was a conniver and the only reason she was backed in her coup was that her husband was a reformer--and it was simply a case of the nobles wanting to keep their power. Whichever the case (and perhaps neither is correct), both films clearly portray Catherine in almost saint-like terms and a woman forced to take this action--which, by the way, would NOT fit her character later in her reign. In other words, she was one tough lady and probably not the little wall-flower you see in these films. After all, she went on to become one of the most powerful and feared of Russia's leaders.

I think my biggest problem with this film, despite the nice direction by Alexander Korda, is that the script doesn't seem to know what sort of film it is. In the first half, it's a love story about Peter and his new bride, Catherine. Both care for each other but Peter later comes to believe that he was manipulated into the marriage and pulls away from his wife. Later, through clever manipulation, she wins his hearts. It's clearly a love story....period. Yet, oddly, as soon as the Empress is ready to die, the elderly lady (Flora Robson) tells everyone that Peter (her nephew) is crazy and dangerous. In light of everything we've already seen, there was no indication of this at all---none. And suddenly, Peter (Douglas Fairbanks) starts behaving crazy and very, very cruel and vindictive. As a result of many threats against his loving wife, Catherine (Elisabeth Bergner) is forced to fight fire with fire and she takes the throne. So what did the two halves of the film have to do with each other--just about nothing other than the names of the characters! While both halves were good, they just didn't fit together well. Additionally, I felt the weak point acting-wise was Bergner--whose interpretation of Catherine was way too weak and sentimental.

My feeling is that this is a watchable film even if its accuracy is in question. But, how many want to watch two films on the exact subject? If you don't, then I suggest the Dietrich version instead--it's made better and the acting is better.

Like "Rembrandt" which I recently reviewed on this board "The Rise of Catherine the Great" is an ostensibly British historical film from the thirties which might also be regarded as a multi-national co-production. It was based on the play by two Hungarian writers (Lajos Bíró and Melchior Lengyel) about a German-born Russian Empress. It had two co-producers, one Hungarian (Alexander Korda) and one Italian (Ludovico Toeplitz), an Austrian director (Paul Czinner) and an American-born leading man (Douglas Fairbanks junior). Its leading lady, Elisabeth Bergner, is difficult to categorise in terms of ethnicity. She was born to a German-speaking Jewish family in what was at the time of her birth part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, at the time this film was made part of Poland and today is part of the Ukraine. Rather than determine whether she should be described as German, Austrian, Hungarian, Polish or Ukrainian, her Wikipedia entry evades the issue by calling her a "European actress".

In 1745 Princess Sophie Auguste Frederika of Anhalt-Zerbst arrived in Russia to marry the Grand Duke Peter, heir to the Russian throne. Although Peter had a Russian mother, he too was from a German princely house, that of Holstein-Gottorp, and could speak little Russian. (By rights the name of Russia's ruling dynasty should, from 1762 onwards, have been the House of Holstein-Gottorp, but for reasons of both nationalism and continuity Peter's descendants continued to use the more authentically Russian surname Romanov). Upon arrival Sophie's name was arbitrarily changed to Yekaterina, generally rendered in English as Catherine, even though "Sofiya" would have been a perfectly acceptable Russification of her German name. Her marriage to the mentally unstable Peter was not a happy one, but they remained together until after he had ascended the throne in 1762. (Divorce would presumably have been unthinkable). As Tsar Peter proved a disaster, and within a few months he was removed from power by a military coup, dying in mysterious circumstances shortly afterwards, following which the coup plotters invited Catherine to become Empress in her own right.

As its title suggests, the film only deals with Catherine's rise to power and not with her subsequent reign. One or two details have been changed for dramatic purposes; in reality Catherine and Peter's marriage lasted for seventeen years, but in the film this period is greatly telescoped and no mention is made of their children. (Their son Paul eventually became Tsar after Catherine's death, even though he was nearly as mad as his father). No mention is also made of the historical Catherine's notorious sexual promiscuity, but in 1934 movie heroines were required to be impeccably virtuous, and Catherine is very much the heroine here.

Bergner is not very good in the leading role, partly because she did not speak English very well but mainly because she is insufficiently imperious and commanding to make us think that this is a woman capable of not only ruling a mighty empire in her own right but also ruling it so well as to acquire the title "The Great". One cannot envisage Bergman's "Little Catherine" ever amounting to more than, at most, a puppet in the hands of the aristocrats and military officers who carried out the coup d'état.

Fairbanks, however, is good as Peter, a difficult role to play because in this production Peter, although suffering from mental illness, is not altogether unsympathetic. At times he is capable of showing love towards Catherine, who for a time returns his love until he begins an affair with another woman. When he dies in the coup his wife is devastated, which is probably more than one could say for the real Catherine. Flora Robson is also good as Empress Elizabeth, Peter's aunt and Catherine's autocratic if capable predecessor.

The mid-eighteenth century was a period when clothes and furnishings favoured by the wealthy classes of Europe were particularly fanciful and elaborate, and this is reflected in the lavish sets and costumes on view here. (By this period the Russian nobility had largely adopted Western fashions; had the story been set a hundred years earlier the clothes of the Boyars and their wives would have been very different to those worn by their English or French counterparts). It is therefore a pity that the film was made in black-and-white, but in 1934 colour film was an expensive luxury, rarely used in Britain. "The Rise of Catherine the Great" is a fairly decent historical yarn, but I felt it could have been better with another actress in the leading role. 6/10

A goof. The film begins and ends with a rousing rendition of the Russian Imperial Anthem, "Tsarya, Bozhe, Khrani", but this hymn was not written until 1833, long after the date when the film is set.

The dynasties of Europe are usually recalled only when they rule major nations for a long time: Plantagenets, Tudors, Stuarts, Hanovarians, Windsors in England; Valois and Bourbon in French; Hapsburg of Austria; Hohenzollern of Prussia and Germany; and Romanov of Russia. The smaller dynasties pop up if they last long enough too: Saxe - Coburg in Belgium (and Bulgaria), Wittelsbach in Bavaria, Holsteins and Bernadottes in Sweden. Occasionally transplanted dynasties are recalled: Hapsburg and Bourbon in Spain.

Less recalled is if the spouse of a royal heir was from a really obscure family. But in the long run the need for new "blood" to continue a dynasty would lead to minor nobility producing wives or husbands for the major dynasties. It was rare for any of the these minor figures to become well known. But Princess Sophie of Anhalt-Zerbst did just that. In fact she was to become a great figure in her own time and in modern history. For Sophie became the Tsarina Catherine the Great of Russia.

Two films that came out in 1934 dealt with Catherine's rise to power. One was THE SCARLET EMPRESS by Joseph Von Sternberg (starring Marlene Dietrich, John Lodge, and Sam Jaffe) and the other was THE RISE OF CATHERINE THE GREAT. As pointed out in another review, the two movies each have aspects of the story missed by the other.

Elizabeth Bergner manages to show more of the naiveté of the young Princess brought to Russia to marry the Grand Duke Pyotr (who became Peter III). Peter (Douglas Fairbanks Jr.) was the sole male descendant of the Romanovs (except for a cousin who had been dethroned in 1741 by the reigning Empress Elizabeth (Flora Robson) and was held in a prison*). Tsarina Elizabeth was determined to have Peter marry and have an heir. She chose Sophie because of dynastic claims to Swedish and Baltic territories of the Romanov Family dealing with their Holstein blood connections - connections that Anhalt-Zerbst shared.

Both movies show how Elizabeth and Catherine (her name was changed to Catherine when she married Peter, as her Lutheran religion was changed to Greek Orthodoxy) treat each other with wariness, but gradually get to see each other as an ally. This is particularly true because Peter was mentally ill. However, while this is shown in THE SCARLET EMPRESS, it is not true about THE RISE. Fairbanks is shown to be mentally ill, but a type of affection rises between him and Catherine every now and then - which is dashed by his paranoia and suspicions.

The performance of Bergner is quite charming (as normal) in this film, and one gets a feeling of sadness that is not historically accurate. Here as history marches on, Catherine regretfully joins in the overthrow of her husband, and watches helplessly while he is taken away to his doom. The actual situation in the overthrow of Peter was closer to the cynical contempt shown by Marlene Dietrich towards her mad husband.

Flora Robson portrays Tsarina Elizabeth as a tired, dying woman, desperate to try to save the dynasty and her nation but aware of the rotten material she has to work with. It's as good a performance as the two leads.

I might add that you should note two brief supporting performances for a historical reason. Gerald Du Maurier (Daphne's father) was a leading stage star in England from the 1900s to 1930s. Irene Vanbrugh was a female star of the 1890s - 1920s (she was in the original THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING EARNEST). Both play roles in this version - Irene Vanbrugh as Bergner's mother. It is very rare to see either of them on film.

*The cousin, Ivan VI, was imprisoned for life - and gradually lost his reason. The guards were told to kill him if there was ever an attempt to rescue the Tsar. When Peter III was overthrown, an adventurer attempted to rescue Ivan and restore him to his throne. Ivan was slain by his guards before the adventurer could reach him.

Doug Fairbanks Junior is Peter, Duke of Russia, next in line for the throne; Elizabeth Bergner is Marta, later named Catherine. When they get married, it starts out as a great love, and slowly deteriorates. Catherine's background in the film is quite different from that in wikipedia dot com; the film from United Artists tells us Catherine was herself a german princess, yet wikipedia suggests she was a common worker, who happened to meet Peter through friends. Lots of uniforms and official ceremony in the film. In any case, Catherine is strong and in control of her emotions, while Peter is a big, emotional mess. Peter doesn't like the thought of her having lovers even though it was his idea to live separately. Good thing this was made in England, or it would have been even more whitewashed, since the film code in the U. S. was so set on appearance, no matter how false. Apparently, she made up her lovers just to make Peter jealous. He rules for about forty years, and when he dies, Catherine takes the throne. Although even that is quite different in the film. It's just okay. A very simplified version of what really happened. But consider that in 1934, much less information was shared or known. Did they change it intentionally, or did they just not know what really happened? Directed by Alexander Korda. Original play by Lajos Biró and Melchior Lengyel.

Less is more, some people say, and to compare this to the Josef Von Sternberg/Dietrich version is like comparing a box cake to a wedding cake. Both are delicious, yet one is more fun to look at. That being said, this British version of the life of Catherine the Great takes 90% of the cast (including extras), props and audacious jewelry, and puts it off to the side. This is the no frills version of the tale of Russia's most powerful woman, not to say that there isn't any opulence. It just isn't overstuffed with it.

This version doesn't have the name brand of Dietrich in fellow German actress Elisabeth Bergner, but she is perfectly fine, if not as overly stuffed in gowns and jewels and big wigs or hair decor. She is also second fiddle to Douglas Fairbanks Jr. as the mad future emperor Peter III and Flora Robson as Empress Elizabeth who get to ham it up while Bergner watches for the most part from the sidelines. It is as if this is the happenings of the former Prussian Princess Sophia's look at the goings on around her as she becomes betrothed to Grand Duke Peter and realizes the mess she's getting into. Empress Elizabeth takes her under her wing, even helping her find a lover, knowing that life with Peter alone will not be satisfying.

Unlike Sam Jaffe, Fairbank's Grand Duke Peter isn't presented as a hideous looking monster, just a hot tempered fool who could go on a homicidal rampage at any minute. Portraits of the real Emperor Peter at the various stages of his life show him looking closer to Jaffe's take on the part, something you might see Conrad Veidt play in a silent German expressionist film. Robson plays Empress Elizabeth as feisty but not the crass royal Louise Dresser was directed to play. Unfortunately, her close-ups and full body shots are not flattering, making her look a bit like a clown in drag. This only covers a short period of Catherine's life in Russia, and yet there's enough detail present to make it an interesting life. Too bad there wasn't a sequel to this more affordable version that showed more of Catherine's reign.

Although Marlene Dietrich was a far more glamorous Catherine the Great, closer to the real one was definitely Elizabeth Bergner in this British production from Alexander Korda.

The former Princess Sophia of Anhalt-Zerbst, one of many small pieces of turf in Germany before that country became a country instead of a geographical expression, pulled off something unique in history. She came as a promised bride to the tsarevitch who in this case was Peter, nephew of the Empress Elizabeth of Russia. Through her own will and genius for intrigue, this Queen Consort, without a drop of royal blood of Russia in her, got to rule Russia and well for over 30 years after deposing her husband. Woman must have done something right.

The film here like the one in Hollywood ends with the deposition and death of the Czar and Catherine taking over. We don't see the regal, confident, and promiscuous empress Catherine was to become. We see her as a shy and overwhelmed German Princess who grows in her role as her husband won't in his. Catherine grows in her character as Elizabeth Bergner does in this part.

Sam Jaffe as Peter is far closer to the mark of the real character of that unfortunate soul than Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. is in this film. Yet Fairbanks gives an extraordinary performance, far from the swashbuckling parts that his father patented on the silent screen. In fact both the Fairbanks were in the UK at the same time. Fairbanks senior gave his farewell screen performance in the Private Life of Don Juan and his son did about seven films for four years of which this is probably his best effort.

The pleasure loving Empress Elizabeth as done by Flora Robson is light years different from Queen Elizabeth in Fire Over England and The Sea Hawk that Robson did later, but still very nicely done.

Alexander Korda perfectly captured the mood and feel of old Romanov Russia as taken over by a usurper, a popular one, but still a usurper.