Let Us Assume that Eastwood is in Charge of the New N+A:

1. It has to be a miniseries. The book--which I read from cover to cover--needs more room than a feature film will allow. One of the faults of the movie is that, in spite of its three hours' length, it still feels rushed and hasty because it tries to cover too many events in too short a time. A miniseries would allow the story to develop in fuller detail with a less hurried pace.
2. The leading roles must be played by actors who have already proven themselves. Putting unknowns in the lead roles of big movies is way too risky: you may want a Peter O'Toole (LAWRENCE OF ARABIA), but instead find yourself stuck with an Anthony Dexter (VALENTINO of 1951). True, Baker and Suzman have had very respectable careers, but the same can hardly be said of Jayston (and, yes, that interview was real!; the interviewer was so amazed at Jayston's opinion of McQueen that she put that quote under Jayston's picture so that no reader would miss it). Finding proven actors who resemble NII should not be too difficult, since Nicholas had a very average face (incidentally, how come that none of the actresses hired to play the Grand Duchesses looked anything like the characters that they were portraying?).
3. Since this is not the story of the private life of the imperial family, but rather the story of a reign that encompassed many important events, it's obvious that this tale should not be filmed as a Chekhov play about dull provincial families living dull lives in dull provincial towns, but rather as an epic in the tradition of David Lean. That is why I'm thinking of Eastwood as its possible director: CE obviously likes period pieces, and he is excellent at balancing quiet personal moments with exciting action sequences.
4. The story should start with the reign of Alexander III in order to give an idea of why N was such an unassertive and even timid person; AIII was a very overbearing individual who thought so little of his son and heir that he never bothered to prepare him properly for the position he would eventually occupy.
We move next to the period of 1894 to 1905, as N tries to rule the empire entirely by himself without any advice from genuinely knowledgeable statesmen, and by defending such abusive laws as forbidding non-Russians such as the Finns, the Poles and the Ukrainians from using their native languages in public, instead forcing them to speak Russian all the time in order to turn them artificially into Russians. This leads, of course, to revolutionary activity that turns Russia into a despotism whose only constraint is assassination.
5. 'tis obvious that Lenin is intended to be the villain of this movie. However, Lenin is given so little to do that he doesn't come across as a genuinely threatening figure. That presents a very interesting narrative scenario: N and L being portrayed as mirror images of each other, at first undistinguishable from each other--the thoughtless way in which N--seriously underestimating the Japanese--went to war against Japan, and then the massacre of those peaceful demonstrators who only wanted to give a petition to the emperor, certainly make N look very bad--, but then, as the story progresses and more of L is seen, it becomes clear that L makes N look like an angel. That should not be too difficult: L's quotations alone are unquestionable proof of the callous cruelty of the man. You know that famous legal precept: 'tis better for a guilty man to escape justice than to have innocent men suffer undeservedly? With L it was the exact opposite: better for ten innocent men to suffer rather than allow one guilty man to escape.
6. Since the Russo-Japanese War is comparatively little known, there must be a detailed explanation of it, and of how the loss of that war and the Revolution of 1905 that it inspired were the beginning of the end of N's reign. There is plenty of opportunity for spectacle here, particularly the huge Battle of Tsushima. Then we see the Duma, and the valiant efforts of people like Rodzianko to persuade the emperor to be a constitutional monarch, only to see their efforts constantly frustrated by reactionaries such as Pobedonostsev, the emperor's uncles and Alexandra.
7. WWI=an even grander war than the conflict with Japan. Except for LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, no film has done justice to this war; it seems its sheer scope has intimidated filmmakers. Therefore, this is pretty much virgin territory; whoever covers adequately Tannenberg, Lemberg and Gorlice-Tarnow will deserve a trophy! The Brusilov Offensive is especially important, since the excessive cost of this ,,victory''--more than a million casualties--pretty much broke down the morale of the army.
8. 'tis well known by now that Rasputin was not assassinated in the way that Yussupov said, but that instead a British agent was involved, his purpose being to prevent Russia from quitting the war. 'tis therefore very necessary to show the murder as it really happened.
9. The emperor abdicates, and the imperial family are now prisoners. Judging from many posts on this board, the captivity and murder of the family is the most affecting part of the movie. It is indeed the best part: Schaffner pretty much quits jumping around from one group of characters to another, and instead focuses intently on the family. Even people who don't know this story clearly understand that N and his entourage will not survive the terrible predicament in which they are.
The ending, of course, will be different, and it will first inspire tears of anguish and anger, and then tears of joy. We will see what nobody knew in 1971: the way in which the bodies were destroyed and then buried; everybody will be outraged at this. Then there will be the suspenseful search for the remains, and their eventual identification; everybody will be relieved. And finally, the inspiring ending: the remains are buried, and President Yeltsin salutes them.
Last shot: the icon of the Emperor, the Empress and their brood as passion bearers.


God is subtle, but He is not malicious. (Albert Einstein)