伊凡雷帝

Eisenstein’s two-part historical biopic of Ivan IV of Russia (1530-1584), it is his swan song, commissioned by none other than Joseph Stalin himself. Intended as a trilogy, the project’s third installment was scrapped after Part II enraged Stalin (why? the behind-the-scene stories are destined to be more appealing than the actual films) and was subsequently banned, which only came out of the woodwork in 1958, 10 years after Eisenstein’s death, and 5 years after Stalin’s.

Viewed today, this two features are testaments to Eisenstein’s absolute geniuses in filmmaking, shot when the Soviet Union took a heavy toll of WWII, he must contend with limited funds and resources to map out such a juggernaut of an enterprise. You can call the eventual fruit ahistorical or irreverent, but not unimpressive, and we can see on the screen where Eisentein splashes out, it is not in the battlefield action, or exterior settings (both are condensed to a minimum, and Part II is essentially a chamber piece, which never ventures into the open), but in the fineries and decors on display, those lavishing costumes (head gears, silk robes, ruffs galore!) are kaleidoscopic with their intricate designs and characteristic patterns, in Part II, when primitive colorization is applied to the revelry sequences, you are able to gape at the fabric’s original texture and chroma, in a word, you must trust a gay man’s dress sense, that is a given.

Technically, Eisenstein is a maestro of shadow play, which is amazingly deployed to parallel the power shifting between Ivan, the founder of Tsardom of Muscovy, who unites the country and the discontent Russian boyars, their schism lies in whether power should be autocratic or shared by those selected few. Ivan’s strongest ally is the masses, and his anti-clerical disposition is emphatically validated by the Eastern Orthodox Church’s callousness. It is not difficult to understand why Stalin personally identified himself with Ivan the ruler.

Also facial expressions has never been so vividly recorded like this, Eisenstein’s close-ups are highly theatrical under the lighting’s manipulation, and sometimes, bolstered by dramatically contrasted compositions. Those faces are mannered but expressive, to register one single emotion (frowning, glowering, darting, staring) at a time. Their purposefulness conveys a heaviness as if those characters are driven by monomania, the expressions don’t belong to real humans, but tableaux vivants heightened in emotionality, to ram their significations down our throats. All I can say is, it is an approach of expression, one man’s meat can be another man’s poison though.

Performance-wise, the cast is superb, despite their method is obsolete. An aquiline Nikolay Cherkasov reigns over the titular role with both flair and variation, his Ivan isn’t defined merely by “terrible”, if you get the preconception that Ivan is a despot, which the films certainly do not concur with, Ivan is an orphan with a grudge, he is ruthless, nearly paranoid, but before that, he has also been consumed by loneliness, betrayal and bereavement (the allegiance test when he is apparently in extremis is a high point in Part I), Cherkasov downplays Ivan’s menace, but highlights his self-importance and grandstanding comportment, and on a minor note of the heavy makeup, how funny his mustache seems to grow out of his nostrils.

Among the secondary players, Lyudmila Tselikovskaya is a beatific Tsarina Anastasia in Part I; Mikhail Zharov, as Malyuta Skuratov, Ivan’s foe-to-friend crony, is remarkable for his canine wiles, especially in Part II; and Mikhail Nazvanov makes Prince Andrew Kurbsky a contradiction of wills and desires, he can look stupid but act not so, or otherwise, there is glint in his eyes, which can be easily lost with all the bloviating, orating and speechifying. Then, a dazed, namby-pamby Pavel Kadochnikov makes Vladimir of Staritsa (Ivan’s cousin) a competent fool, the prototype of a mommy’s boy, but surprisingly, free of mockery, when he is struck down, you just feel sorry for him, accursed by his blue blood. Lastly, as Vladimir’s mother and Ivan’s aunt, Efrosinia of Staritsa, the arch-villain, Serafima Birman is terrific in both films, her saturnine venom is spilt all over the screen, but when she chants, it is also weirdly affecting, almost facetious, yes, credit also should be accorded to Prokofiev’s grand, emotive score, it helps to hold the whole nine yard together, and cues you to adjust the gravity quotient, aka. how serious the matter you are watching means to be.

While both films are equally eloquent and uniformly reflect Eisenstein’s mastery, Part II has a slight edge with the colored segments that grant you a taste of what he can do with colors, and it is mad as hell, oversaturated and kinetic, as if you were spelunking in the hellmouth, these two films are revelations, even if you are not particularly into that aforementioned approach, Eisenstein is always a veritable force to be reckoned with.

referential entries: Eisenstein’s BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN (1925, 8.4/10); Laurence Olivier’s HAMLET (1948, 8.3/10); Mikhail Kalatozov’s THE CRANES ARE FLYING (1957, 8.6/10).

English Title: Ivan the Terrible, Part I

Original Title: Ivan Groznyy

Year: 1944

Country: Soviet Union

Language: Russian

Genre: Biography, Drama, History

Director/Screenwriter/Editing: Sergei M. Eisenstein

Music: Sergei Prokofiev

Cinematography: Andrey Moskvin, Eduard Tisse

Cast:

Nikolay Cherkasov

Lyudmila Tselikovskaya

Serafima Birman

Mikhail Nazvanov

Mikhail Zharov

Amvrosi Buchma

Mikhail Kuznetsov

Pavel Kadochnikov

Andrei Abrikosov

Aleksandr Mgebrov

Rating: 8.1/10

English Title: Ivan the Terrible, Part II

Original Title: Ivan Groznyy. Skaz vtoroy: Boyarskiy zagovor

Year: 1958

Country: Soviet Union

Language: Russian

Genre: Biography, History

Director/Screenwriter: Sergei M. Eisenstein

Music: Sergei Prokofiev

Cinematography: Andrey Moskvin, Eduard Tisse

Editing: Esfir Tobak

Cast:

Nikolay Cherkasov

Serafima Birman

Pavel Kadochnikov

Mikhail Zharov

Amvrosi Buchma

Mikhail Kuznetsov

Andrei Abrikosov

Aleksandr Mgebrov

Mikhail Nazvanov

Vladimir Balashov

Vsevolod Pudovkin

Pavel Massalsky

Ada Vojtsik

Rating: 8.2/10

文章首发微信公众号【小导演儿】，转载请说明出处 。

墙上光影与下面小人形成鲜明的对比

墙上光影特写，与下面小人形成鲜明的对比

墙上光影说话的嘴在动

光影压迫下面地球

S曲线全景

S曲线远景

S曲线

S曲线近景

近景大特写的人物与远景人们形成强烈对比。显示皇帝伟大，人民像蚂蚁一样向他走来。

文章首发微信公众号【小导演儿】，转载请说明出处 。

电影网络面授班报名微信：wyy99389505

超多的面部特写，高颜值的演员，镶金嵌宝的服装，气势恢宏的音乐，外景镜头非常考究。演伊凡的演员摆POSE的技能逆天了，笑点是俄罗斯的宫殿门象狗洞，人人得以弯腰侧身通过，直到最后皇婶策划教堂行刺时我才发现皇帝的这个亲属是女的。

日丹诺夫说爱森斯坦把伊凡雷帝塑造了一个神经衰弱的人。而斯大林认为：伊凡雷帝是一个极其残酷的人，表现他的残酷是可以的。但应当说明为什么要残酷。伊凡雷帝的一个错误就是没有彻底铲除五大封建家族。如果他消灭了这五大家族，那就根本不会出现混乱时期了。而伊凡雷帝不管是处死谁，过后总是后悔不已，忏悔个没完。在这方面妨碍他的是上帝。应当更果断一些。

斯大林说：你们把沙皇演成了一个优柔寡断的人，就像是哈姆雷特。总是别人告诉他应当做什么。而不是他自己作出决定。 沙皇伊凡是一个伟大而英明的统治者，如果把他同路易十一作比较（你们读过有关路易十一为路易十四奠定专制制度基础的书吗？），那么伊凡雷帝同路易简直不可同日而语。伊凡雷帝的英明之处在于，他始终站在民族的立场上，不允许外国人进入自己的国家，从而防止了外来影响向国内渗透。