The "what if" story of Anastasia is a fascinating one. This particular version of that story is outstanding. A great script that is witty and often funny, filmed and acted beautifully.
In addition to containing the finest performance of Ingrid Bergman's career, including Casablanca, Yul Brynner is at his best and Helen Hayes delivers an absolutely brilliant gem of a performance. While Bergman justly won Best Actress of 1956 for her performance, I find it astounding that Brynner and especially Hayes did not even get consideration. Yes, Brynner was nominated and even won for his silly, over the top performance in The King And I. And I'm sure, like Jim Broadbent this year, he was rewarded as much for his body of work for the year as he was that single performance. Still though, I'm baffled as to why he won for The King and not for "The General". The snub of Hayes, though, is even more mystifying. Particularly because 1956 was a pretty weak year for great films and performances, especially in the supporting actress category. Any year in which a performance like Dorothy Malone's in the Sirk trash de l'annee, Written on the Wind, can win has to be weak. Hayes performance, in addition to being played to perfection, also seems like the kind that is almost a given to at least be nominated. In other words, if Anastasia was remade (again) this year, Judi Dench would play the role and a nomination would be a given. Almost as much a mystery to me as the "Is she or Isn't she" thing.
This film fluctuates wildly between dark and light. One minute, you're shocked by the horrors Anastasia must have endured over the years, the next minute Ingrid Bergman is making you laugh out loud at a brilliant drunken performance. One minute, Bergman is in tears, the next she's overjoyed. Definitely one of the all time great performances by an actress.
However, there are a few things I'm just not sure how I feel about. And perhaps that's one of the films' intentions. (Possible spoiler ahead) The ending is very surprising and very abrupt. And not entirely satisfying. Or is it? I'm not sure. Not being familiar with the story before I saw this film, I expected a letdown in the final twenty minutes after Anastasia's grandmother accepts her. I predicted they would plant one final seed of doubt, and then end it. And they do...in a way. But not the way I would have hoped. I would have liked to see it end on a dark and sinister note. To put it into our heads that maybe Ingrid Bergman's character might be playing everyone for a fool. Maybe. As it stands, the apparent flight with Brynner's character is functional enough, I suppose, to create some mystery. In other words, for me, the ending is a letdown, but not a total letdown. The difference between a great film and what could have been a brilliant one.
In addition to containing the finest performance of Ingrid Bergman's career, including Casablanca, Yul Brynner is at his best and Helen Hayes delivers an absolutely brilliant gem of a performance. While Bergman justly won Best Actress of 1956 for her performance, I find it astounding that Brynner and especially Hayes did not even get consideration. Yes, Brynner was nominated and even won for his silly, over the top performance in The King And I. And I'm sure, like Jim Broadbent this year, he was rewarded as much for his body of work for the year as he was that single performance. Still though, I'm baffled as to why he won for The King and not for "The General". The snub of Hayes, though, is even more mystifying. Particularly because 1956 was a pretty weak year for great films and performances, especially in the supporting actress category. Any year in which a performance like Dorothy Malone's in the Sirk trash de l'annee, Written on the Wind, can win has to be weak. Hayes performance, in addition to being played to perfection, also seems like the kind that is almost a given to at least be nominated. In other words, if Anastasia was remade (again) this year, Judi Dench would play the role and a nomination would be a given. Almost as much a mystery to me as the "Is she or Isn't she" thing.
This film fluctuates wildly between dark and light. One minute, you're shocked by the horrors Anastasia must have endured over the years, the next minute Ingrid Bergman is making you laugh out loud at a brilliant drunken performance. One minute, Bergman is in tears, the next she's overjoyed. Definitely one of the all time great performances by an actress.
However, there are a few things I'm just not sure how I feel about. And perhaps that's one of the films' intentions. (Possible spoiler ahead) The ending is very surprising and very abrupt. And not entirely satisfying. Or is it? I'm not sure. Not being familiar with the story before I saw this film, I expected a letdown in the final twenty minutes after Anastasia's grandmother accepts her. I predicted they would plant one final seed of doubt, and then end it. And they do...in a way. But not the way I would have hoped. I would have liked to see it end on a dark and sinister note. To put it into our heads that maybe Ingrid Bergman's character might be playing everyone for a fool. Maybe. As it stands, the apparent flight with Brynner's character is functional enough, I suppose, to create some mystery. In other words, for me, the ending is a letdown, but not a total letdown. The difference between a great film and what could have been a brilliant one.