The Agony of Truth & Ecstasy of Myth:
      Rasputin, Damon der Frauen and Rasputin-Orgien am Zarenhof

                                              By Heather Drain

 
History is one of those subjects that has more than a shaky relationship with the wide, world of filmmaking. It’s hard enough for books to get it right half of the time, but movies? Well let’s just say it is thornier than rosebush bikini. Part of this is that when someone is making a dramatic movie, as opposed to say a documentary, there is the tendency and push towards putting entertainment first. Which makes sense, after all who wants to sit through a two-hour plus, bone-dry historical film? Yet if a writer completely sacrifices historical content for thrills, then you’re going to have some high absurdity on your hands. Granted there is something beautiful about absurdity when it works but that may not be the real intention for the filmmaker. But what about that precious rare middle ground? Yes, that elusive yet always present gray area that gives any artist with huevos ample room to play around with. Now with a historical character as controversial as Grigori Rasputin, the gray area can get even scarier for some but certainly not for all. Two German films, both completely different and yet the same in some key ways, are proof of how beneficial the gray area can truly be to any brave filmmaker. The first one being a creaky but entertaining 1932 film titled Rasputin, Damon der Frauen starring the inimitable Conrad Veidt and the other is the 1984 hardcore film, Rasputin-Orgien am Zarenhof.

Even going beyond the superficial level, these are two very unique films. The 1932 version first of all has some bizarre pacing, almost reminiscent of Todd Browning’s early talkies. But instead of an icy vampire in the form of the Russian “madman”, the real monster is the Russian military and to a lesser extent, the aristocracy. There are a number of scenes where certain members of the upper crust take advantage of Rasputin’s warm nature and very human weaknesses. Not only that but they also seem to view him as some kind of boorish, drunken bear with Mesmeric like powers, instead of being the powerful and good hearted man of God he truly is. In fact, the film’s real strength is the intensity, talent, and raw charisma that is Conrad Veidt as Rasputin. It’s not just Veidt but the fact that his Rasputin is one that any of us can identify with. Is he unabashedly enamored with wine, women, and song? Absolutely. But instead of using these aspects to damn him, the film uses them to paint a more complete, realistic picture. He doesn't seem any less holy when he is drinking beer or lasciviously pawing a pretty girl. In fact, he is a man that fully enjoys the pleasures that God has blessed us with, whether it is on a spiritual or physical plane. It may seem near heretical to some but that doesn’t change the fact that deep down, it makes him a more tangible and hence more effective figure. In other words, this is the type of spiritual leader I could get behind. It doesn’t hurt that Veidt is so striking physically and it is not hard to imagine him being able to bed any woman he desired.

Rasputin is shot. The sympathetic treatment of Rasputin in the 1932 Conrad Veidt version is exemplified by the three photos above.

Speaking of bedding in some bizarre manner, the 1984 hardcore film Rasputin-Orgien am Zarenhof takes a similar approach. Well, sort of. This time Rasputin, played by Alexander Conte, is lusty, spiritual, and tried to help out folks the best he can. With his penis. I kid, but I am not far off from the truth. The military is even more villainous in this film, with peasants being outright brutally slaughtered and tortured. The strange thing about this film is that it often veers between wanting to be a serious historical epic and a Euro-skin screwfest with more hairy assholes than I have EVER wanted to see. Including my least favorite shot in porno history, that for your reading pleasure is now dubbed “the dog’s balls.” You know what I’m talking about. The shot from behind where you get a big close-up of the dude’s nasty balls and butthole, while he whittles away on some poor, unsuspecting orifice. Gruesome. NOBODY looks good from that angle. The male body can be a beautiful thing but not from that angle. Guys like Joe Dallesandro or John Saxon could not pull that angle off and they are handsome devils. So any budding pornmeister out there, just say no to the dog’s balls. For my sake and for humanity’s.

Conte is a very different Rasputin from Veidt’s. While Veidt was dressed exotically in silks, making him an even more visually compelling and seductive creature, Conte looks like a hirsute Euro-lounge lizard dressed like a peasant. Again the truth is often somewhere in between. One of the big differences is that this Rasputin is very piggish and forceful with his women. He doesn’t rape anyone but he is definitely no Don Juan. Compare this to Veidt’s Rasputin who has women literally coming to him. No force needed because he is just that compelling. Plus there’s no dog’s balls shot in sight, another bonus.

The 1984 German film is loaded with harcore sex, violence, and shots of big, juicy Dogs Balls!

Unlike a lot of critics, I think it is absolutely possible to make a seriously good movie that happens to have explicit sex within it. Filmmakers like Rinse Dream, Gerard Damiano, Cecil Howard, and yes even the Dark Brothers have proven this as fact. However the schizophrenic approach ends up seriously dampening the 1984 film. It takes these serious stabs at drama, only to spend way too much time on the sex scenes, including one long ass one set in a spa that does not include any of the main actors. There’s nothing inherently wrong with straight out porn but you gotta know what exactly you are shooting for. The dog’s balls people! The really strange thing is that Rasputin-Orgien am Zarenhof is also available in a soft core cut. Given the off-nature of the straight scenes and the high explicitness of the sex scenes, that must be some weird viewing. It’s not like the non-hardcore scenes are particularly strong enough to carry the whole film.

While the Veidt film is the better one by far, there is something incredibly fascinating about the fact that two German films with over 50 years between them and that were handled in such a radically different manner could have a similar approach to the hero/villain dichotomy. The more recent film might not be the best Rasputin film in the world by far, but there is something cool about it sharing the same vein of the 1932 version. It is this unlikeliness that makes cinema at large so exciting. So the next time you watch a historical film, sit back and think about the gray area, the human element, and that elusive tether between information and entertainment.

Gert Frobe is shot at the end of I Killed Rasputin. Only the 1984 German film has Rasputin surviving his assisination attempt and living on to rule the Czars court and continue forcing the ladies to stare at his Dogs Balls!