Jump to content

Ivan the Terrible (1945 film)

This is a good article. Click here for more information.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Ivan the Terrible, Part II)

Ivan the Terrible
Theatrical poster for the film Ivan the Terrible
Theatrical poster
Directed bySergei Eisenstein
Written bySergei Eisenstein
Produced bySergei Eisenstein
Starring
CinematographyAndrei Moskvin
Eduard Tisse
Edited by
Music bySergei Prokofiev
Release dates
  • January 1945 (1945-01) (Part 1)
  • 1 September 1958 (1958-09-01) (Part 2)
Running time
  • 177 minutes
  • Part 1: 95 minutes
  • Part 2: 82 minutes
CountrySoviet Union
LanguageRussian

Ivan the Terrible (Russian: Иван Грозный, romanized: Ivan Grozny) is a two-part Soviet epic historical drama film written and directed by Sergei Eisenstein, with music composed by Sergei Prokofiev. A biopic starring Nikolay Cherkasov as Ivan IV of Russia, the film follows Ivan IV from his childhood to his older years as tsar, and details his formation of the oprichnina and conflict with the boyars, particularly with his aunt (Serafima Birman) and cousin (Pavel Kadochnikov). Lyudmila Tselikovskaya plays a supporting role as Ivan's wife Anastasia, with members of the oprichnina being played by Mikhail Zharov, Amvrosy Buchma, and Mikhail Kuznetsov. Ivan the Terrible was Eisenstein's final film.

Soviet leader Joseph Stalin commissioned the film in early 1941; production was delayed by the beginning of World War II, and ultimately did not start until April 1943. The majority of the film was shot in Alma-Ata; several scenes were shot in Moscow. Part I was released in 1945, and received a Stalin Prize. Part II, although it finished production in 1946, was banned and not released until 1958. Eisenstein had planned three parts for the film, but with the banning of Part II, filming of Part III was stopped. Eisenstein died in 1948, leaving the film incomplete.

The film has a mixed legacy, being both harshly criticized and highly praised. Since its release, it has been named in several lists of the best films of all time, and has often been called one of Eisenstein's most complex films.

Plot

[edit]
Ivan the Terrible, Parts I and II

Part I

[edit]

In 1547, the 17-year-old Grand Prince of Moscow, Ivan IV, is crowned as the tsar of all Russia, amid animosity from the boyars and jealousy from his aunt Yefrosinya Staritskaya. Yefrosinya wishes to see her son, Vladimir Staritsky, on the throne instead. Ivan makes a speech proclaiming his intent to unite and protect Russia against the foreign armies outside her borders and the enemies within – a reference to the boyars, who are already unhappy with his coronation. A Livonian ambassador asks Prince Andrei Kurbsky why Ivan is more worthy to rule than Kurbsky is.

Shortly after, Ivan marries Anastasia Romanovna. Kurbsky, who is in love with her, attempts to resume his romance with her, but she rejects his advances. At the wedding, Fyodor Kolychov, a close friend of Ivan, informs him that he cannot support him in his mission against the boyars and receives his permission to retire to monastic life. The marriage feast is interrupted by an unruly mob of common people, led by Malyuta Skuratov and the holy fool Nikola. The two complain that the tsar is being led astray by the tsarina's family. Ivan calms the crowd, but is interrupted by envoys from the khanate of Kazan, who announce that Kazan has declared war against Muscovy. Malyuta swears loyalty to the tsar and accompanies him to Kazan.

In the siege of Kazan of 1552, Ivan's army digs saps underneath the city and fills them with gunpowder. Kurbsky, nominally in command, is reprimanded by Ivan for senseless brutality against their Tatar prisoners, causing his resentment against Ivan to grow. The city of Kazan falls to the Russian army. Here, Ivan meets Alexei Basmanov, a commoner who despises the boyars.

During his return from Kazan, Ivan falls deathly ill. Yefrosinya reminds Kurbsky of how Ivan betrayed him by marrying the woman he loves. She urges him to swear allegiance to Vladimir, promising him rule over Moscow, as Vladimir is intellectually disabled and not fit to rule on his own. Ivan sends for the boyars and orders them to swear allegiance to his son, the infant Dmitri, reminding them of the need for a single ruler to keep Russia united. The boyars, encouraged by Yefrosinya, refuse to do so. Ivan collapses and is thought dead. The boyars all begin to swear allegiance to Vladimir. However, when the tsarina hints that Ivan is not yet dead, Kurbsky hurriedly swears his allegiance to Dmitri. Ivan unexpectedly grows well, and as a reward for his loyalty, Kurbsky is sent to the western border of the kingdom to defend against the Livonians and Poles. Alexei Basmanov is sent to the south to take care of the Crimean border. The fact that Ivan promotes a commoner over them creates more discontent amongst the boyars.

The boyars and the Archbishop Pimen plot against Ivan. Yefrosinya, in order to weaken Ivan and leave him without allies, plans to kill Anastasia. Just as the royal couple receives word that Kurbsky has surrendered to the Livonians, she slips a goblet of poisoned wine into the room. The news shocks the tsarina, who is already ill. Ivan, looking around for a drink to calm her, takes the wine and gives it to her, unknowingly killing her.

Ivan questions his own justifications and ability to rule, wondering if his wife's death and Kurbsky's final defection to King Sigismund of Poland is God's punishment against him. He sends for his old friend, Kolychov. Alexei Basmanov suggests that Ivan instead surround himself with men he can really trust, the oprichniki. He offers his son, Fyodor, in service to Ivan.

Ivan abdicates and leaves Moscow for Alexandrova Sloboda in 1564, waiting until the people beg him to return, saying that he would then rule with absolute power by the will of the people.

Part II: The Boyars' Plot

[edit]

In 1565, Kurbsky swears allegiance to King Sigismund of Poland. Sigismund promises to make Kurbsky ruler of Ivan's territories once he exploits the tsar's absence by conquering them. The plan is foiled when an emissary announces that Ivan has returned to Moscow. In Moscow, Ivan declares the establishment of the zemshchina and oprichnina.

Kolychov, now known as Philip, arrives. Ivan, lacking allies, asks him to become metropolitan of Moscow. He agrees, on the condition of being given the right to intercede for condemned men. As soon as it is settled, Malyuta, on Ivan's orders, kills several boyars (three of which are Philip's kinsmen) before he can intercede for them, gaining Philip's enmity.

Reminiscing on his childhood, Ivan recalls witnessing his mother's death by poisoning. He remembers as a teenager, standing up to the boyars Shuiskiy and Belskiy, both of which want him to sign a trade contract with the Livonian Knights and the Hanseatic League, respectively. After Shuiskiy insults Ivan's mother and attempts to strike him, Ivan has him executed, and declares that he will rule alone, as tsar.

Fyodor Basmanov suggests to the tsar that his wife was poisoned. Suspecting Yefrosinya of the murder, he orders Fyodor to keep silent about this suspicion until they are certain of her guilt. Meanwhile, Philip vows to block Ivan's abuse of power and confronts him in the cathedral while a miracle play about Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego is presented. As they argue, a boyar child confuses Ivan for Nebuchadnezzar. The child calls out, asking whether this is the "terrible heathen king". Ivan immediately grows certain that Yefrosinya killed his wife. He proclaims that he will be exactly what his enemies call him – terrible.

Some time after, Yefrosinya announces to the boyars that Ivan has arrested Philip, and will likely execute him. Having lost one of their most powerful allies, the boyars, along with the archbishop Pimen, decide that their only option is to assassinate Ivan. The novice Pyotr is selected to carry out the assassination. Malyuta then arrives to invite Vladimir to a banquet with Ivan and the oprichniki.

At the banquet, Ivan gets Vladimir drunk. Vladimir mentions that there is a plot to kill and replace Ivan with him as tsar. Fyodor and Malyuta notice Pyotr leaving for the cathedral and signal to Ivan who, feigning surprise at Vladimir's revelation, suggests Vladimir try being tsar. He has the oprichniki bring the throne, orb, scepter, crown, and royal robes, and they all bow down to Vladimir. Vladimir then leads the oprichniki and Ivan to the cathedral in prayer. Pyotr mistakes him for the tsar and fatally stabs him.

Yefrosinya arrives, celebrating the death of Ivan. After she sees him alive, she realizes that her son has been killed and goes insane. Ivan pardons the assassin, thanking him for killing not only "a fool", but "the tsar's worst enemy". Ivan proclaims to his oprichniki that all his enemies within Moscow are vanquished, therefore, he can now turn his attention to those outside.

Cast

[edit]

Production

[edit]

Development

[edit]

In May 1940, Eisenstein sent Ivan Bolshakov a letter about two films that he planned to write a scenario for, together with Lev Sheinin. The first option was about Lawrence of Arabia, and the other was about the Beilis affair. Additionally, Eisenstein had in mind a film about Pushkin. Bolshakov did not respond to this letter, so in December of the same year, Eisenstein and Sheinin wrote Stalin a letter expanding on their ideas for the Beilis film. The Beilis film was rejected in January 1941.[3][4] In the same month, Eisenstein met with Andrei Zhdanov, who instead commissioned on Stalin's behalf a film about Ivan the Terrible.[3][5][6] Stalin admired Ivan IV, considering him to be a "great and wise" ruler.[7] He was interested in rehabilitating Ivan's image to a more positive image, particularly to one of a powerful state builder, and promoted the image of Ivan IV as the founder of the modern Russian state.[8][9]

Eisenstein began research on the film in early 1941. Among his sources were Heinrich von Staden's and Andrei Kurbsky's writings about their lives in Ivan's court and his reign, and Ivan's correspondence with Kurbsky. Additionally, Eisenstein read the biography of Ivan by Robert Wipper and the writings of historians Sergei Solovyov, Vasily Klyuchevsky, Alexander Pypin, and Igor Grabar.[10] Eisenstein filled over a hundred notebooks with his ideas for the film.[11] He read extensively, not only about Ivan the Terrible and 16th-century Russia but in general about theory: the writings of Freud, Vissarion Belinsky, John Masefield, and Shakespeare also influenced the creation of the film.[12]

Sketch of Queen Elizabeth I made by Eisenstein
A 1942 drawing of Queen Elizabeth I made by Eisenstein for the film. Elizabeth was intended to have been portrayed by Mikhail Romm.

By the end of February, Eisenstein had a rough draft of the screenplay; he submitted the first draft of the screenplay to Mosfilm in May 1941.[6][13] After the invasion of the USSR in June 1941, he planned to modify the screenplay to emphasize the antagonistic nature of the Germanic forces of the Holy Roman Emperor, the Livonian Knights, and the Hanseatic League; Eisenstein also planned to show more of Ivan's positive relations with the English.[14] Also due to the invasion, Mosfilm evacuated most of their actors and professionals to Alma-Ata. Eisenstein was evacuated to Alma-Ata in October; he completed the screenplay in December.[15] The screenplay was approved in September 1942, but due to bureaucratic pressure, Eisenstein removed most of the scenes with the English.[16][17] The scenario of Ivan the Terrible had been accepted by Mosfilm in the form of two full-length films. Eisenstein considered splitting the screenplay into three parts and discussed this with Grigori Alexandrov, who was against this; ultimately, he ignored Alexandrov's advice and changed the film from two parts to three.[18] He received permission to create a third part in 1944.[19]

The score for the films was composed by Sergei Prokofiev, with whom Eisenstein had collaborated on Alexander Nevsky.[20] Eisenstein wrote to Prokofiev in March 1942, asking him to compose the score for Ivan the Terrible; Prokofiev arrived in May.[21] Prokofiev incorporated music from an unrealized production of an adaptation of Boris Godunov into the score.[22] He did not finish writing the score of Part I until August 1944.[23] In January of 1945, he suffered a concussion, and was too ill to work. In spite of Prokofiev's request that Eisenstein instead work with Gavriil Popov, Eisenstein insisted on working with him. He recovered by October of that year and was able to complete the score for Part II.[24]

Casting

[edit]

Casting for the film began in spring of 1942. Eisenstein invited Nikolay Cherkasov, who had previously performed the title role in Eisenstein's Alexander Nevsky, to play Ivan IV. Mikhail Zharov, who had wanted to perform the role of Kurbsky, was instead offered the role of Malyuta. Erik Pyryev, son of director Ivan Pyryev, performed the role of the young Ivan.[25] Ada Voytsik, Erik's mother, played the role of Ivan's mother, Elena Glinskaya.[26]

Eisenstein wanted Vsevolod Pudovkin to play Pimen, but Pudovkin was filming In the Name of the Fatherland[27] and was unavailable at the time; then he suffered a heart attack and could not accept the role. He ultimately played the holy fool Nikola. Aleksandr Mgrebov was then considered for the role of Pimen. Unknown to Eisenstein, he was seriously ill with tuberculosis. When Eisenstein learned about Mgrebov's illness, he organized medical treatment for the actor, who later stated that Eisenstein's intervention saved his life.[28][29]

According to Mikhail Kuznetsov, Eisenstein noticed him after his performance in Mashenka, and already began to consider him for the role of Fyodor Basmanov. After Kuznetsov, along with most actors working with Mosfilm, evacuated to Alma-Ata, Eisenstein offered him the role.[30] Pavel Kadochnikov stated that Eisenstein had wanted Nikolay Okhlopkov to play the role of Vladimir Staritsky, but Okhlopkov was too old for the role. Therefore, Kadochnikov was invited to play Vladimir. He also played the role of a clown in the miracle play in Part II, and was meant to have played the role of Evstafy, a kinsman of Philip II, in Part III.[31][32]

The actresses for Anastasia and Yefrosinya were found 6 months after filming began. The role of the tsarina first was offered to ballerina Galina Ulanova, however, filming conflicted with her dancing career, leading her to reject the role. Ultimately, Lyudmila Tselikovskaya, who was Zharov's wife, was cast as the tsarina. Eisenstein wanted to cast Faina Ranevskaya as Yefrosinya, but Ivan Bolshakov, who had final say on casting choice, insisted that Ranevskaya, as a Jewish actress, was an unsuitable choice to play the boyarina. The role then went to Serafima Birman.[33][34]

Filming

[edit]

Production on the film was delayed until April 1943 due to the ongoing invasion of the USSR.[35] Eisenstein had worked almost exclusively with Eduard Tisse for most of his features, and invited Tisse to work on the film. In 1942, Eisenstein became friends with Andrei Moskvin, and developed a closer relationship with Moskvin than he had with Tisse. However, he did not want to fire Tisse, as he was concerned that Tisse, without the protection of Eisenstein, could be arrested for his "Germanic" name. Cinematography was therefore divided between the two: Tisse shot the exteriors, and Moskvin, who became director of photography, filmed all interior scenes. The color sequences of Part II were also filmed by Moskvin.[36]

One of the difficulties of filming was making Cherkasov look convincingly both older and younger than he was. Ivan had to age throughout the film, so the 39-year-old Cherkasov had to portray a 17-year-old Ivan at the beginning of Part I and gradually age to a 53-year-old Ivan. For the portrayal of 17-year-old Ivan, makeup artist Vasily Goriunov used adhesive to glue back the flesh on Cherkasov's face. This also had the effect of limiting his ability to move his face.[37][38] Cherkasov's style of acting was realistic, but highly stylized and intense. He was reported to have been in a state of nervous exhaustion when the filming of the second part of Ivan the Terrible was completed.[39]

Most of the production was shot in Kazakhstan at Mosfilm's substantial production facility in Alma-Ata;[40] several scenes were shot in the town of Kaskelen, 30 kilometers from Alma-Ata.[41] Filming was done at night, since electricity was limited during the day.[37] Lack of access to food was widespread; to hide the malnutrition of the actors, the costume designer sewed cotton "muscles" into the costumes.[42][43] In July 1944, production of the film was transferred to Moscow.[44] Although most of the film was shot in black and white, there are color sequences of a dance and banquet in the second part, which correspond to the very last scenes which were shot for the film. Eisenstein filmed these scenes in Moscow, as Prokofiev's score for the scenes were not ready before the film studio ended their evacuation in Alma-Ata. While waiting for Prokofiev, Eisenstein attended a film conference on color in film, and was so impressed by the vivid red colors in a film documentary on the Potsdam Conference that he shot his final scenes in color.[45][46] Filming of the second part was completed in autumn 1945.[47]

Part III

[edit]

A third part, which began production in 1946, was abandoned after the banning of the second part. The footage of several scenes were destroyed. Only a fragment exists of the third part.[48][49]

The plot of Part III was to include Ivan's growing paranoia of his followers, his execution of the Basmanovs, and a battle against Livonian troops which Ivan wins, thus gaining access to the sea for his people at the cost of Malyuta's life.[50] Part III would have also introduced the characters of Heinrich von Staden and Queen Elizabeth I, played by Oleg Zhakov[51] and Mikhail Romm, respectively.[52] Eisenstein contemplated several endings for Part III: one ending had the tsar walking triumphantly toward the sea, another had the aged tsar contemplating the future of Russia, a third had the tsar dying alone and regretful after his murder of his son, and a fourth would have had the tsar seeing a prophetic vision of Peter the Great conquering the Baltic Sea, having himself lost the sea just weeks after conquering it.[53]

Themes and analysis

[edit]

Stalinism and the depiction of Ivan

[edit]

Eisenstein wrote in 1941 that his depiction of Ivan the Terrible was not intended to "whitewash him or to turn Ivan the Terrible into Ivan the Sweet", but rather to show "Ivan in the whole range of his activity and the struggle for the state of Muscovy."[54] Historian Joan Neuberger argues that Eisenstein had no intention to glorify Ivan the Terrible, as he chose to focus on the oprichnina and the bloodiest years of Ivan's reign and completely excludes his positive reforms from the film.[55] Ivan, in his pursuit of centralization of power, gives up personal connections and suffers from loneliness for the majority of the film. Due to his fear of vulnerability, he kills those closest to him; Eisenstein called these murders "decisive moments", as they show Ivan's true nature as a murderous ruler desperate to maintain his power.[56] The film was intended to end with Ivan reaching the Baltic Sea, victorious but alone, having lost or destroyed all those close to him.[3] Neuberger describes Ivan the Terrible as a "personal drama", compared to the "collective drama" of Battleship Potemkin or the "patriotic drama" of Alexander Nevsky, as it focuses more on Ivan's personal struggles rather than his political or military career.[57]

The film's treatment of Stalinism has been debated. Critics generally agree that Ivan is meant to represent Stalin.[58] Bernd Uhlenbruch compared the dynamic of Ivan and Kurbsky to Stalin and Trotsky, noting that like Trotsky, Kurbsky went into exile, and compares Malyuta to Beria;[59] Mikhail Romm reported that when Part II was first screened in 1946, the audience saw Stalin, Beria, and the NKVD in Ivan, Malyuta, and the oprichnina.[60] While the first part is generally viewed as a Stalinist depiction of Ivan IV, critics such as Naum Kleiman and Dwight Macdonald viewed Part II as a serious critique of Stalinism.[61][62] Richard Taruskin wrote that the film "conveyed as poisonous a message as art has ever been asked to monger..."Ivan the Terrible," film and score alike, is dedicated to the proposition that abstract historical purposes justify bloody acts in the here and now."[63] One reviewer for Time Magazine wrote: "it cannot be said that Eisenstein is protesting the horror and the madness he portrays. He seems rather...to be trying to explain to himself the hideous paradox that Stalin, in 1943, had become Russia's savior."[64]

Historicity

[edit]

Eisenstein took liberties with historical fact to develop his narrative. He replaced the historical figures Metropolitan Macarius and Sylvester with the historical figures of Metropolitan Philip and Pimen of Novgorod [ru], who oppose the tsar in the film. He invented a romance between Prince Kurbsky and Anastasia in order to create personal strife for Ivan.[65] Additionally, Pimen of Novgorod was never Metropolitan of Moscow, the character of the holy fool Nikola is entirely fictional, and there is no historical evidence that Yefrosinya Staritskaya poisoned Anastasia Romanovna.[66]

Painting depicting the execution of the boyar Fyodorov-Chelyadnin. The Tsar, in red, kneels in the center, holding a dagger behind his back; Fyodorov-Chelyadnin sits dressed in royal robes to the right.
Painting by Nikolai Nevrev depicting the execution of Ivan Fyodorov-Chelyadnin

Vladimir's death may have been inspired by the legend of the execution of the boyar Ivan Fyodorov of the Chelyadnin family. According to the story, Ivan IV invited Fyodorov-Chelyadnin to sit on the royal throne, dressed in royal robes; he bowed to him, then stabbed him in the heart. The historical Vladimir Staritsky is believed to have been poisoned.[67]

Religion

[edit]

The Orthodox Church in Ivan the Terrible is depicted as a power that supports tradition and the interest of the boyars.[68] Historian Charles J. Halperin argues that the depiction of religion in Ivan the Terrible is explicitly negative, as all characters associated with the Russian Orthodox Church are negatively characterized. Halperin argues that the portrayal of Philip, who was canonized by the Orthodox Church, as a scheming boyar, is particularly defamatory.[66]

Religious imagery and allusions, such as icons, appear in nearly every scene of the film, and are used to comment on the nature of the characters. Eisenstein tasked the makeup artist, Vasily Goriunov, with making Ivan resemble Nebuchadnezzar, Judas, Uriel Acosta, Mephistopheles, and Jesus Christ at different points of the film.[69] In the film, Ivan watches a play about Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. The biblical story ends with an angel saving the three boys from the flames, and the tyrant Nebuchadnezzar recognizing his folly and repenting. In the film, the model of the angel falls into the flames, and Ivan does not repent or change.[70] Yuri Tsivian writes that Ivan in the scene of his near-death resembles Hans Holbein's Dead Christ, and compares a scene where Anastasia holds Ivan's foot to Renaissance depictions of Mary Magdalene mourning Christ.[71] Pimen appears next to a fresco of the Angel of Death, Yefrosinya appears next to frescoes of demons, and Vladimir is killed in front of a fresco of the Forty Martyrs.[72]

Allusions

[edit]

Slava Tsukerman compares the scene with the play to the play in Hamlet: Hamlet stages a play to observe whether or not his uncle Claudius is guilty of murder and ascertains that Claudius is guilty; in the film, the play is staged, and Ivan realizes at this time that his aunt is guilty of murder.[73] Katerina Clark writes that visually, Fyodor Basmanov resembles Botticelli's portrait of Giuliano de Medici, insinuating the idea that like the Medici family, the oprichnina rules by violence rather than by office (in contrast to the boyars).[74]

According to Viktor Shklovsky, Eisenstein took inspiration from the works of Victor Hugo when writing the death of Vladimir Staritsky. Vladimir's death resembles the ending of Rigoletto, based on Hugo's Le roi s'amuse: the court jester wishes to kill the king, but by accident kills his own child, who is dressed as the king.[75] Vladimir's death may also mirror a scene from Battleship Potemkin where a mother holds her dead son.[76][77] In a diary entry from 1947, Eisenstein wrote that the relationship between Ivan and Vladimir mirrors the one between Rogozhin and Prince Myshkin from Dostoevsky's The Idiot.[78] Daria Khitrova argues that the film makes an allusion to Swan Lake: in the first part of the film, white swans appear at the wedding feast and are replaced by black swans in the second part's banquet. Vladimir, like Prince Siegfried, is seduced by a black swan, and like Prince Siegfried, meets a fatal end.[79]

Homoeroticism

[edit]

The film has been interpreted as having a homoerotic subtext, particularly in regards to the characters of Fyodor, Ivan, and Vladimir. In the interpretation of Neuberger, most of the male characters of the film show signs of homoerotic attraction. Eisenstein wrote in his production notes that King Sigismund's courtiers were "effeminate" and that Fyodor Basmanov "must love" Ivan, and in one of the final scenes of the film, Fyodor dances in drag, dressed in a parody of Anastasia's clothing.[80][81] Additionally, Eisenstein in his notes wrote one scene implying Fyodor's homosexuality – while pillaging a boyar estate, he takes a pair of earrings from a young woman; his father later discovers the earrings and punches him. This scene was never filmed.[82][83] In his notes for the film, Eisenstein describes Fyodor's role in the film as the replacement of Anastasia, or an ersatz version of Anastasia;[75] in the view of both David Gillespie and Sultan Usuvaliev, he specifically replaces Anastasia as Ivan's "partner".[84][85]

Dwight Macdonald commented that "[Eisenstein]'s homosexuality has free play... Ivan has a favorite, a flirtatious, bold-eyed police agent, and many excuses are found for having Ivan put his hands on the handsome young face... There are two open homosexuals in the film....the king of Poland... [and Yefrosinya's] son, Vladimir."[86] Thomas Waugh in his analysis of Eisenstein's work wrote that Vladimir Staritsky was "the only explicit reference to homosexuality in Eisenstein's entire career".[87] Ronald Bergan disagreed with an interpretation of the characters as homosexual, writing that Ivan and Fyodor were depicted as no more than close friends, that Fyodor's dance in feminine clothing was a reference to Chinese opera, and that none of the characters in the film were depicted as homosexual.[88]

Symbolism

[edit]
A woodcut of a hawk flying and looking over a snowy landscape
Ivan the Terrible looking over a crowd of people in a snowy landscape
Leyda suggested that Eisenstein's depiction of Ivan was influenced by ukiyo-e art.[89]

Eisenstein extensively used shadows in the film, to the point where Andrei Zhdanov complained that Eisenstein's "fascination with shadows" was distracting for the viewer.[90] Shadows are often used to visually explain a character's power and control over other characters. This is especially evident in the throne room scene in Part I, when Ivan's shadow dominates the globe, with all those around him referring to his political power.[91]

Animals are used to represent certain characters. Ivan's animal is a bird of prey; his movements are bird-like, and his makeup emphasizes an aquiline appearance. In one scene, his staff casts the shadow of a double-headed eagle onto his face.[37] Jay Leyda compared another scene of Ivan to a Hiroshige woodcut of a hawk.[89] Yefrosinya was similarly represented by an eagle.[92] Malyuta Skuratov uses dog-related metaphors to describe himself, as he represents the tsar's loyal dog.[93] Eisenstein designated Fyodor's animal as a leopard, and sent Kuznetsov to the zoo in Alma-Ata to observe snow leopards in preparation for his role.[94][43][95] Swans appear twice in the film: in the beginning, white swans appear at the wedding feast, representing the "white swan" Anastasia; in the end, black swans appear at the dance of the oprichniki; and Anastasia has been replaced by Fyodor.[96]

Certain characters wear colors to refer to their roles in the narrative. Malyuta Skuratov, after his promotion to role of the tsar's spy, is dressed in a new black robe; when he first carries out executions, he is dressed in gold-stitched brocade. In the view of Neuberger, this symbolizes the transformation of the oprichnina into a neofeudal force.[97] Pimen, the antagonistic Metropolitan, is initially dressed all in white, to symbolize death. In Eisenstein's sketches, Pimen resembles a skull, and one scene had him standing opposite of a fresco of the white horseman of Death.[98] Color symbolism was also used in the scene of the banquet and Vladimir's death: Eisenstein used the color red for the theme of conspiracy and revenge, black for death, and gold for debauchery. As the scene of Vladimir's death draws closer, the color black appears more prominently, blocking out the color gold; suspicion of conspiracy is highlighted with the addition of red.[99][100]

The young male supporters of Ivan are all clean-shaven, meanwhile, the boyars, along with the older Malyuta and Alexei Basmanov, all have beards. Kolychov, at Ivan's coronation, shows a small beard. Towards the end of the film, Vladimir Staritsky begins to show a small beard. According to Gillespie, this is a sign that Vladimir is associated with the old order, and will inevitably be destroyed alongside the boyars, while Kolychov's conflict with Ivan was hinted at since his coronation. Additionally, Pyotr, who intended to kill Ivan, was meant to join Ivan in the third part of the film; Pyotr is beardless.[101]

Screenings and release

[edit]

Ivan The Terrible, Part I was screened by the Mosfilm Artistic Council in October 1944. The members of the council were disappointed with the film. The members criticized the characterization of Ivan IV, Malyuta Skuratov, and the oprichnina. As a result, they demanded the removal of the prologue (part of which would be reinserted into Part II as flashbacks of Ivan's childhood[102]), more emphasis on Ivan's accomplishments as Tsar, and modification of the presentation of the oprichniki to make them less sinister. The artistic merits of the film were also criticized.[103] Part I was screened for Stalin in December of that year and premiered in Moscow in January 1945.[a][104][105] The same year, it was nominated for the Stalin Prize. In spite of the objections of the members of the Stalin Prize committee, the film ultimately received the prize.[106] For their work on Part I, Eisenstein, Cherkasov, Prokofiev, Moskvin, Tisse, and Birman[107] were each awarded a Stalin Prize in 1946.[108][109]

The second film, Ivan The Terrible, Part II: The Boyars' Plot, was submitted for screening in February 1946.[104][110] The film received heavy criticism from the Central Committee, who called the picture "anti-historical".[111] Ivan Pyryev compared the depiction of Ivan and the oprichnina to fascists and stated that the portrayal of Ivan was completely unsympathetic.[112] Part II was then banned by the Central Committee on 5 March 1946, about a month after Part I had been awarded the Stalin Prize.[113][114] In spite of this, Eisenstein insisted on screening Part II for Stalin, who called it a "nightmare".[115] Stalin criticized Eisenstein's Ivan as being "a weak-willed Hamlet", and the oprichnina as being too similar to the Ku Klux Klan.[116][117] Eisenstein and Cherkasov met with Stalin on 25 February 1947 to discuss modifications to the film in order to lift the ban. After the meeting, despite receiving permission to revise Part II and begin work on Part III, Eisenstein did not work further on the film.[114][118] A year later, in February 1948, Eisenstein suffered a fatal heart attack while writing an article about the film.[114][119]

On 6 May 1958, Part II was screened for a group of Soviet historians by Mosfilm, who were asked whether it could be shown to Soviet viewers. The historians widely agreed that Part II could be shown to Soviet viewers, as it "could not discredit [Soviet] art, ideology, or aims",[120] and recommended its release to the Ministry of Culture.[121] Part II was released in the USSR on 1 September 1958.[122] In October, it received its world premiere at the Brussels Exposition.[123]

The film was restored under the direction of Karen Shakhnazarov; it was presented at the 2015 Cannes Film Festival.[124] In 2021, it was re-released for theaters in select Russian cities.[125]

Reception

[edit]

The film has been polarizing amongst viewers.[73][126] It has been noted for its complexity. Film theorist Leonid Kozlov [ru] in a review of Eisenstein's career called it "the most complex and most masterful" of Eisenstein's films; Neuberger likewise described the film as being far more complex, in both artistic and political terms, than any of his other films.[127][128] According to Yuri Tsivian, it has been called "the most complex movie ever made".[90][129]

The first part was received ambivalently by general in the USSR upon release, although it received mostly positive critical reviews.[130] Critic Boris Romashov [ru], writing for Izvestiya, called the first part a "masterpiece of cinematographic art" and praised the acting, cinematography, and set design.[131] Vsevolod Vishnevsky also praised the film in his review for Pravda.[132] Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn directly references the film in his 1962 novel One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich; in a scene where two characters argue about the merits of the film, one of the characters claims about Eisenstein: "You can't call him a genius! Call him an ass-kisser who followed orders like a dog."[133] In retrospective, the film was highly praised. Natalya Sokolova wrote for Iskusstvo Kino in 1958 that the film was the greatest work of each of its participants, in spite of the film's flaws; in particular, she praised Cherkasov's acting.[134]

When the first part was first screened in France, the reception was mixed both among audiences, and among critics.[135] Bosley Crowther, writing for The New York Times, called Part I a "work of art" and praised the visuals, camerawork, Prokofiev's score, and Cherkasov's performance, while criticizing the lack of continuity in the film, and the "conspicuously totalitarian" depiction of Ivan IV.[136] In contrast, Crowther harshly criticized Part II, calling it a "pale extension" of Part I.[137] Pauline Kael wrote that Ivan was "lacking in human dimensions...True, every frame in it looks great...but as a movie, it's static, grandiose, and frequently ludicrous."[138] Ivan the Terrible was awarded 4 out of 4 stars by critic Roger Ebert and included on his list of "Great Movies". In his 2012 review, Ebert praised the scope and visuals while criticizing the story, and concluded "It is one of those works that has proceeded directly to the status of Great Movie without going through the intermediate stage of being a good movie...every serious movie lover should see it — once."[139] Ben Maddow wrote similarly that Ivan was "a film quite pure in style, hideous in its magnificence, and superhuman in its characters...Ivan is a great film, in motive and in plan; but it is not a good one."[140] Critic Jean de Baroncelli wrote in 1959 that the film was the "apotheosis of the cinematic genius of Eisenstein".[141] It was included among Harry Medved's list of the worst films of all time, as well as in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die.[142][143] Sight and Sound in 1962 named Ivan the Terrible the 6th greatest film of all time, tying with Battleship Potemkin and Bicycle Thieves; in 1972, Sight and Sound named it the 12th greatest film of all time, tying with The Gold Rush, Hiroshima mon amour, Ikiru, Pierrot le Fou, and Vertigo.[144][145] Cahiers du Cinéma in 1959 named it the fourth-best film of all time.[146]

Directors Akira Kurosawa, Éric Rohmer, and Slava Tsukerman named Ivan the Terrible as among their favorite films.[147][148][73] Charlie Chaplin called the film "the greatest historic film that has ever been made".[149][150] Michael Chekhov reportedly considered the film excellent from a director's point of view and an artistic point of view, but criticized the quality of the acting.[151] Rowan Williams stated that Ivan the Terrible influenced his interest in Russia and led him to pursue doctoral research about Russian Christianity.[152] Andrei Tarkovsky watched the film "with rapt attention"; it is believed to have influenced his film Andrei Rublev.[153] Among those that disliked the film were Orson Welles[154] and Igor Stravinsky, the latter of which called it "stupid and provincial" and criticized Prokofiev's music.[149]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ The film premiered either on 16 or 20 January.

Citations

[edit]
  1. ^ Tobak 1998, p. 133.
  2. ^ a b Neuberger 2003, p. xi.
  3. ^ a b c Ryabchikova 2021.
  4. ^ Kushnirov 2016, p. 342.
  5. ^ Kushnirov 2016, p. 347.
  6. ^ a b Perrie 2001, p. 149.
  7. ^ Perrie 2001, p. 1–2.
  8. ^ Rieber 2024, p. 170.
  9. ^ Neuberger 2019, p. 74.
  10. ^ Neuberger 2014, p. 301.
  11. ^ Neuberger 2014, p. 297.
  12. ^ Neuberger 2014, pp. 315–318, 328–329.
  13. ^ Neuberger 2014, p. 316.
  14. ^ Perrie 2001, pp. 151–152.
  15. ^ Neuberger 2014, p. 318.
  16. ^ Neuberger 2003, p. 14.
  17. ^ Perrie 2001, p. 152.
  18. ^ Seton 1960, p. 429.
  19. ^ Neuberger 2019, p. 62.
  20. ^ Neuberger 2019, p. 55–56.
  21. ^ Bergan 1999, p. 324.
  22. ^ Palmer 1991, p. 180.
  23. ^ Neuberger 2019, pp. 55–56, 65.
  24. ^ Neuberger 2019, p. 68.
  25. ^ Neuberger 2019, pp. 53–54.
  26. ^ Kushnirov 2016, p. 387.
  27. ^ Yurenev 1974, p. 375.
  28. ^ Neuberger 2019, p. 54.
  29. ^ Yurenev 1974, pp. 329–330.
  30. ^ Yurenev 1974, pp. 335–336.
  31. ^ Yurenev 1974, pp. 342–343.
  32. ^ Bergan 1999, p. 328.
  33. ^ Neuberger 2019, pp. 54–56.
  34. ^ Kushnirov 2016, pp. 350, 352.
  35. ^ Neuberger 2014, p. 303.
  36. ^ Neuberger 2019, pp. 56–57.
  37. ^ a b c Oeler 2018, p. 50.
  38. ^ Yurenev 1974, pp. 327–328.
  39. ^ Seton 1960, p. 428.
  40. ^ Seton 1960, pp. 411–412.
  41. ^ Yurenev 1974, p. 380.
  42. ^ Usuvaliev 2014, pp. 188–189.
  43. ^ a b Yurenev 1974, p. 340.
  44. ^ Neuberger 2019, p. 65.
  45. ^ Leyda 1982, pp. 134–135.
  46. ^ Ryabchikova 2021, p. 214.
  47. ^ Perrie 2001, p. 170.
  48. ^ Bergan 1999, p. 345.
  49. ^ Dixon & Foster 2008, p. 77.
  50. ^ Eisenstein 1962.
  51. ^ Neuberger 2003, p. x.
  52. ^ Neuberger 2008, pp. 83, 91–92.
  53. ^ Neuberger 2014, p. 334.
  54. ^ Neuberger 2014, p. 306.
  55. ^ Neuberger 2014, p. 310.
  56. ^ Neuberger 2019, pp. 192–193.
  57. ^ Neuberger 2014, p. 315.
  58. ^ Neuberger 2019, pp. 123–124.
  59. ^ Uhlenbruch 1990, pp. 274–279.
  60. ^ Neuberger 2019, p. 319.
  61. ^ Neuberger 2014, pp. 298–299.
  62. ^ Thompson 1977, p. 30.
  63. ^ Taruskin 1995.
  64. ^ Time 1960.
  65. ^ Neuberger 2014, pp. 309–310, 314.
  66. ^ a b Halperin 2017.
  67. ^ Shklovsky 1976, p. 253.
  68. ^ Seton 1960, p. 430.
  69. ^ Tsivian 2001, pp. 262–263.
  70. ^ Gillespie 2008, p. 37.
  71. ^ Tsivian 2001, pp. 263–265.
  72. ^ Neuberger 2004, p. 376.
  73. ^ a b c Tsukerman 2019.
  74. ^ Clark 2012, p. 52.
  75. ^ a b Shklovsky 1976, p. 252.
  76. ^ Gillespie 2008, p. 44.
  77. ^ Zorkaya 2006, p. 273.
  78. ^ Gillespie 2008, p. 40.
  79. ^ Khitrova 2011, pp. 59–61.
  80. ^ Neuberger 2018, p. 130.
  81. ^ Neuberger 2019, pp. 322–324.
  82. ^ Neuberger 2018, p. 128.
  83. ^ Neuberger 2014, p. 321.
  84. ^ Gillespie 2008, p. 23.
  85. ^ Usuvaliev 2014, p. 194.
  86. ^ Bergan 1999, pp. 345–346.
  87. ^ Waugh 1977, p. 66.
  88. ^ Bergan 1999, p. 346.
  89. ^ a b Leyda 1982, pp. vii, 128.
  90. ^ a b Tsivian 2019.
  91. ^ Gillespie 2008, pp. 29–30.
  92. ^ Neuberger 2019, p. 217.
  93. ^ Gillespie 2008, p. 34.
  94. ^ Usuvaliev 2014, p. 192.
  95. ^ Shklovsky 1976, p. 278.
  96. ^ Khitrova 2011.
  97. ^ Neuberger 2014, p. 326.
  98. ^ Tsivian 2001, pp. 257–259.
  99. ^ Eisenstein 1964, pp. 531–535.
  100. ^ Verkhoglyadov 2021.
  101. ^ Gillespie 2008, p. 29.
  102. ^ Neuberger 2014, p. 311.
  103. ^ Neuberger 2019, p. 306–309.
  104. ^ a b Neuberger 2003, p. 22.
  105. ^ Neuberger 2019, p. 66.
  106. ^ Neuberger 2019, pp. 313–319.
  107. ^ Perrie 2001, p. 169.
  108. ^ Platt et al. 1999, p. 640.
  109. ^ Taylor 2004, p. 39.
  110. ^ Neuberger 2019, p. 69.
  111. ^ Seton 1960, pp. 449–450.
  112. ^ Gillespie 2008, pp. 23–24.
  113. ^ Neuberger 2019, p. 305.
  114. ^ a b c Neuberger 2003, p. 23.
  115. ^ Neuberger 2019, pp. 321, 327.
  116. ^ Neuberger 2019, p. 328.
  117. ^ Taylor 2004, p. 40.
  118. ^ Neuberger 2019, pp. 330–331, 334.
  119. ^ Neuberger 2019, pp. 69–70.
  120. ^ Ryabchikova 2021, pp. 325: "Как произведение, выражающее определенные идеи, оно не может дискредитировать ни наше исскуство, ни нашу идеологию, ни наши устремления, и с этой точки зрения оно может иметь доступ к широкому зрителю"
  121. ^ Ryabchikova 2021, pp. 324–325.
  122. ^ LaValley & Scherr 2001, p. 144.
  123. ^ Leyda 1959, p. 22.
  124. ^ Smurygina 2015.
  125. ^ Iskusstvo Kino 2021.
  126. ^ Neuberger 2003, p. 2.
  127. ^ Kozlov 1961, pp. 88–90:"«Иван Грозный» — несомненно, самое сложное и вероятно, самое мастерское из произведений Эйзенштейна."
  128. ^ Neuberger 2003, p. 27.
  129. ^ Neuberger 2004, p. 374.
  130. ^ Neuberger 2019, pp. 305–306.
  131. ^ Romashov 1945, p. 4.
  132. ^ Perrie 2001, p. 168.
  133. ^ Neuberger 2014, p. 298.
  134. ^ Sokolova 1958, pp. 90–96.
  135. ^ Time 1946.
  136. ^ Crowther 1947.
  137. ^ Crowther 1959.
  138. ^ Neuberger 2019, p. 301.
  139. ^ Ebert 2012.
  140. ^ Maddow 1945, p. 30.
  141. ^ de Baroncelli 2009.
  142. ^ Medved & Dreyfuss 1978, pp. 113–116.
  143. ^ Schneider 2005.
  144. ^ BFI 1961.
  145. ^ BFI 1972.
  146. ^ Hillier 1985, p. 287.
  147. ^ Thomas-Mason 2023.
  148. ^ Wigley 2015.
  149. ^ a b Grossman 2011.
  150. ^ Bergan 1999, p. 329.
  151. ^ Yurenev 1974, p. 338.
  152. ^ Williams 2018.
  153. ^ LaValley & Scherr 2001, p. 144, 163, 165.
  154. ^ Kapterev 2010, p. 247.

Bibliography

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
  • Eisenstein, Sergei, et al. The Film Sense. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975. ISBN 978-0-15-630935-6.
  • Eisenstein, Sergei, and Jay Leyda. Film Form. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1949. ISBN 0-15-630920-3.
  • Eisenstein, Sergei, et al. The Eisenstein Reader. London: British Film Institute, 1998. ISBN 0-85170-675-4.
  • Gallez, Douglas W. The Prokofiev-Eisenstein Collaboration: "Nevsky" and "Ivan" Revisited. Cinema Journal, 1978. doi:10.2307/1225488.
  • Nesbet, Anne. Savage Junctures: Sergei Eisenstein and the Shape of Thinking. City: I. B. Tauris, 2003. ISBN 978-1-85043-330-9.
  • Minturn, Neil. The Music of Sergei Prokofiev. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997. ISBN 0-300-06366-0.
  • Thompson, Kristin. Eisenstein's "Ivan the Terrible": A Neoformalist Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981. ISBN 0-69110-120-5.
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ivan_the_Terrible_(1945_film)&oldid=1255120552"