A Saint among the Unsaintly

381359 900 1

Контент 18+ (лексика)

I scratch my head in wonder at why some people want to plant bombs in cinemas or attack people with broken glass over the issue of whether a long-dead and politically inept Russian czar, a century ago, had a girlfriend prior to his official marriage.

But when you pull it all together  -- and assuming it wasn’t a conspiracy, as one of my students thinks, dreamed up by the film directors themselves to generate more publicity for the film (WOW!) --

it starts to come together. I guess.

So, from the government and church point of view:

  1. The centennial of the death of the czar and his family is in the summer of next year: 2018. It is very important to the Government AND the Church that this event be memorialized properly. Because…...

  2. The Russian Orthodox Church is now, essentially and effectively, part of the Russian government.

  3. Nicholas II, though indisputably a weak and ineffectual leader whose ineptitude brought ultimate disgrace to Russia’s foreign and domestic well-being and thus sowed the seeds of a foreign-financed revolution as well as his own ruin, nevertheless displayed courage and a heroic devotion to the Russian people during the period of his house-arrest leading to his and his family’s murder. This is why both he and his family have been canonized -- and for no other reason. This Nicholas II in death has been granted a status that he never would have deserved had he chosen to escape in 1917.

  4. From the church standpoint, it is imperative that Nicholas -- as a saint -- be seen in an impeccable light. To the religious, this means NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE,  Nobody knows if Mathilda and Saint Nick ever got down on the mattress together, and my mind truly boggles that anyone cares -- but The Religious do because this is all part of the Magic of their belief system. The idea that this Russian guy Nicholas was normal in his manhood and wanted a woman before the enslavement of marriage, makes complete sense to all the people I know (and most of the dogs) but not to the Religious. It is because their solution to everything is not logic, anthropology, psychology, etc….but MAGIC !!!

Now, for the cinematic point of view:

  1. History offers great themes for artistic interpretation But where the actual record fails to stimulate, an artistic license must be taken, or so the producers and directors think. It’s true of all the history-based films: Titanic, Braveheart, Elizabeth, Spartacus. When was the last time you saw a film of any kind, even a cartoon (or ‘animated film’, as they say) that didn’t have a ‘love connection’? I mean, who -- except for the most spartan of scholars -- wants to sit through 90 minutes of a guy like Nicholas wincing and grimacing as all the wheels come off?  So, Elizabeth is seen in a romance with, first Leicester and then Essex, and Nicholas is imagined in an interlude with Mathilda. The fact is that Nicholas was successfully manipulated (and not happily so) by no less than THREE women, including his own wife. Because he was weak. In this sense, he was never a true King, and history KNOWS it.

  2. The cinema NEVER pretends to convey a 100% accurate account of history. No film producer or director would ever pretend otherwise. Once in awhile, a real attempt is made to provide insight, but 95 percent of the time the point is to use a historically compelling situation to build an enticing (and commercially successful) drama. And, apart from total,  cynical falsification, it is their right to do so. I mean, who will ever know if the men of Spartacus stood up and said “I am Spartacus”, even if it meant ensuring their own crucifixion. It is nice to think they might have, but whether they did or did not, the point is that it offers inspiration to the human spirit. And it made for one hell of a movie moment.

So, in the end, Nicholas Romanov was a man, no more, no less. That he loved Russia, that he loved his family, that he was cynically butchered by a gang of brutal cowards, and that he probably died with the Mentality of a Martyr, truly loving his people and begging forgiveness of God for his mistakes, makes him a hero -- or at least heroic enough in my book.

I was never a czar. I have not been imprisoned. I have not seen my family murdered. I have not prayed or my country even as I was buried alive.

So OK Nicholas, it’s OK.  Not a good political leader. But, in the end, saintly enough.

Thus the problem is not with Nicholas and any woman he might have desired or even had relations with. The problem is with the repulsive idiots who would plant bombs in cinemas under the banner of religion. You are the scum of the earth. You have nothing to do with the positive aspects of religion that have inspired and helped people through the centuries. You are terrorists.

Terrorists. And Assholes.

Compared to people like you -- compared to the coward Lenin who did everything from abroad and with foreign money; apart from the arrogant and murderous Trotsky; apart from Stalin ---- compared to them and YOU --

Maybe Nicholas WAS a saint.

Let it rest. And stay the f*ck away from the cinemas so the rest of us can use our rights as free people to go and watch a film. Clear enough?

===Eric Richard Leroy===
Мнение автора может не совпадать с мнением редактора и владельца блога.

Source: Eric-Artem LJ

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.