The Real Hero of Russia's Turbulent Past: Is It Really Mikhail Prokhorov?

I've been waiting for this series for ages - ever since the announcement that it was happening. Now, let's break it down, from general to specific.

1. Besides the historical figures I'll get to in a minute, there are also fictional characters - Ariadna Slavin, Mikhail Prokhorov - who seem to be fantastically woven into the whole thing, without holding particularly high positions. Prokhorov works with the revolutionaries, signs with Stolypin, and the Emperor can't even recommend a tailor to him, while Rasputin invites him to knock back a couple of shots, then catches the British assassin of Rasputin. And Ariadna's all buddy-buddy with British intelligence, then with the revolutionaries, meanwhile drawing her young lover into the revolutionary movement.

Is it fantasy? It looks that way, but...it's precisely here that it's necessary. With these characters, it's exactly what allows them to show the historical figures and processes, like peeking over their shoulders and at what's happening around them. It's impossible to tie everything together from the chaotic mess of the early 20th century without these 'bridges'.

For the same reason, the next point.

2. Not all historical figures and political forces are shown in the film. Peasants are practically completely absent (and consequently, the way of life and customs are not reflected). On the other hand, if we take historical sources from the same tsarist times, we'll find a completely different...world. The Emperor and his family's connection to Siberia (basically, any locations outside Moscow and St. Petersburg, as well as foreign locations) are left out of the picture.

Some people might be upset about this, but it's impossible to fit the ocean of human stories into 16 episodes. People write multi-volume monographs, what chance does a series have?

3. The film uses real chronicles from back then. And what's more - it's done incredibly well and impressively - historical scenes and moments are recreated with photographic accuracy. For example, the scene of Gapon's murder - Gapon's pose in the film is exactly the same as in the police reports (you can compare them yourself).

Lenin (Yevgeny Tkachuk) on a tank4. With the same photographic accuracy, historical figures are recreated - both in appearance and in the way they speak, gesture, and so on. This level of detail in modern historical cinema for a wide audience is still something to look for.

Maksim Gorky Lev Trotsky5. What really stood out to me was the claim to objectivity. The revolution and civil war created a huge rift that never really went away - it just got buried pretty deep. Usually, one side of the conflict gets demonized: either the Bolsheviks and the revolutionaries, or the tsar. Like, if it wasn't for them, we'd be swimming in chocolate right now. Here, though, there's no clear-cut division between good and evil. 6. That being said, there are some discrepancies (I'll give credit where credit is due, it's just minor stuff): they mentioned Gapon being pretty awkward in private conversations, struggling to articulate his thoughts, and having a strong Ukrainian accent. So, his speeches and appeals to workers would often leave his contemporaries scratching their heads - he'd transform into a completely different person the moment he stepped up to the mic. Another thing: the film goes with the most well-known version of Gapon being a provocateur, which was the official Soviet line. However, after the Soviet Union fell, that theory was debunked.

7. They also included the little details that people who love the tsarist era tend to get worked up about: the women of loose morals in the taverns (in tsarist Russia, prostitution was effectively legal from 1843 onwards, with a minimum age of 18 only introduced in 1903, and it wasn't until 1917 that the Bolsheviks declared it a morally reprehensible practice). You could also include the British involvement in Rasputin's murder (although Rasputin's assassination itself isn't shown in the film). At the same time, some of the little details are either distorted or glossed over (especially when it comes to the way certain characters speak). 8. The flip side of not including a ton of different forces and factors is that the film's portrayal of the revolution can feel a bit schematic and rough around the edges. By focusing on the accuracy of the physical appearances and speech patterns of certain historical figures, the creators had to sacrifice some of those details. 9. Not all the historical events made it into the film, including some pretty well-known ones. If they had, the film would've been more like 160 episodes, each an hour and a half long. 10. I want to give a special shoutout to Evgeny Tkachuk's performance. He absolutely nailed Lenin - not just in terms of looks, but also in terms of speech patterns and mannerisms. I only found out it was Tkachuk by checking the cast list online. Yeah, his speech pace was a bit faster than the original, but he got the tone spot on.

Eugene Tkachuk as Lenin I've got to give props to Eugene Tkachuk for bringing Lenin's desperation to life when he's stuck in his weak, ailing body. It's like he's trapped in a cage and can't even get his thoughts out. The way he's struggling to speak, to convey his thoughts and pleas... it's just brilliant. 11. Stalin. We're used to seeing Stalin as an older guy, and during the revolution, he's usually pushed to the background. But here, he's front and center, and it's a real departure from what most people remember from history class. So, the image of this Stalin is a total game-changer.

Stalin in the series (Timofey Okroev) 12. I've got to say, the romantic plotline and some of the dialogue feel a bit forced. Trying to show a mix between a vampire-like woman and a drama queen in Vysotskaya's performance... yeah, that's just not needed. And the same goes for the over-the-top mood swings of the young revolutionary. Although, having read a lot of books from that era, I have to admit that young people of both sexes were less restrained in expressing their emotions back then, and it was considered perfectly normal, unlike our modern views.13. Unfortunately, I don't think Yuri Borisov fits the role of Mikhail Prokhorov - he comes across as a bit too straightforward as the tsar's investigator. It's not about the way he looks, no - it's more about his manner of speaking and the dialogue itself... it creates a bit of a disconnect. In short, this series is a great attempt at showing what happened over a century ago without any propaganda. Honestly, I don't remember any other films or series that tackle the subject in such an objective way - no bias, no sensationalism. Yes, the revolution is shown in broad strokes, sometimes a bit crudely. Without all the tiny details that often pop up even when researching your own family history. But overall, the people and personalities who had power and influence are shown, as well as the bigger picture. The guy on all the posters, Mikhail Prokhorov in Yuri Borisov's portrayal, who seems to be constantly spinning around and getting tangled up, turns out to be just a bridge between all the characters, while the main character, played by Evgeny Tkachuk, takes a while to appear and gradually takes up more screen time until... the film ends with Lenin's death, serving as a tribute to Vladimir Ilyich, and gives a brief glimpse into the context of his rise to power without trying to glorify him... So, I'm left wondering: are the main character and the main role in this film the same thing?)