Top Qs
Timeline
Chat
Perspective

Ivan the Terrible (1945 film)

Two-part film by Sergei Eisenstein released in 1945 and 1958 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ivan the Terrible (1945 film)
Remove ads

Ivan the Terrible (Russian: Иван Грозный, romanized: Ivan Grozny) is a two-part Soviet historical drama film, produced, written and directed by Sergei Eisenstein. The film chronicles the reign of 16th-century Russian tsar Ivan IV (Nikolay Cherkasov) 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 Ivan's wife Anastasia, while members of the oprichnina are played by Mikhail Zharov, Amvrosy Buchma, and Mikhail Kuznetsov. The score was composed by Sergei Prokofiev.

Quick Facts Directed by, Written by ...

Ivan the Terrible was commissioned on behalf of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin in January 1941. However, production was delayed by the German invasion and the subsequent Soviet entry into World War II in June. When principal photography eventually commenced in April 1943, the majority of the film was shot in Alma-Ata, while the color scenes were filmed in Moscow. Eisenstein had planned to finish Parts I and II by summer 1944, but production delays meant only Part I and partial principal photography of part II was completed by 1944. Part I was released in 1945 and received a Stalin Prize. Part II was completed in 1946, but was banned by Soviet authorities that year and not released until 1958. Eisenstein intended for Ivan the Terrible to be a three-part film, and had begun filming for Part III, but abandoned production of Part III after the ban of Part II. Eisenstein died in 1948, leaving the film incomplete.

Ivan the Terrible has had a polarized reception, being both harshly criticized and highly praised within the Soviet Union as well as internationally. Its visuals and scope have received praise, but the reception of other aspects such as the acting and plot has been more mixed. The film has sparked debate for its treatment of Stalinism, and has been the subject of academic study with regard to its portrayal of history, religion, gender, homoeroticism and power. Over the decades Ivan the Terrible has been re-evaluated as one of Eisenstein's most complex works, and has featured in lists of the greatest-ever films.

Remove ads

Plot

Summarize
Perspective
Ivan the Terrible, Parts I and II

Part I

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, who wishes to see her son, Vladimir Staritsky, on the throne. 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 Andrey Kurbsky why Ivan is more worthy to rule than he is.

Shortly after, Ivan marries Anastasia Romanovna. Kurbsky, who is in love with her, attempts to seduce 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, the Romanovs. Ivan calms the crowd, but is interrupted by envoys from the khanate of Kazan, who announce that Kazan has declared war against Muscovy. The tsar decides to attack Kazan. Malyuta swears loyalty to him and accompanies him there.

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. Basmanov and his son Fyodor accompany the tsar back to Moscow.

During his return from Kazan, Ivan falls deathly ill. Yefrosinya, knowing that Kurbsky resents Ivan, 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 Tsarevich Dmitry, 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 begin to swear allegiance to Vladimir. However, when the tsarina hints that Ivan is not yet dead, Kurbsky hurriedly swears his allegiance to the tsarevich. Ivan recovers, and as a reward for his loyalty, Kurbsky is sent to the western border of the kingdom to fight against the Livonians and Poles. Alexei Basmanov is sent to the south to take care of the Crimean border. The promotion of a commoner 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 their chambers. 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 Poland is God's punishment against him. He sends for his old friend, Kolychov. Alexei Basmanov suggests that he instead surround himself with men he can really trust, the oprichniki. He offers Fyodor in service to him as the first oprichnik.

Ivan abdicates and leaves Moscow for Alexandrova Sloboda in 1564. When hundreds of common people come to him, he decides to return, saying that he will then rule with absolute power by the will of the people.

Part II: The Boyars' Plot

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. Immediately after, 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.

While speaking with Philip, Ivan recalls witnessing his mother's death by poisoning, and how as a teenager he confronted the boyars Shuiskiy and Belskiy, both of which wanted him to sign a trade contract with the Livonian Knights and the Hanseatic League, respectively. After Shuiskiy insulted Ivan's mother and attempted to strike him, Ivan had him executed, and declared that he would rule alone, as tsar.

Fyodor Basmanov suggests to the tsar that his wife was poisoned. Suspecting Yefrosinya of the murder, yet unwilling to act against a member of his family, he orders him to keep silent 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 mystery play about Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego is presented. As they argue, a boyar child confuses Ivan for Nebuchadnezzar and 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 to assassinate Ivan and install Vladimir onto the throne. For this task, they select the novice Pyotr Volynets.

Ivan invites Vladimir to a banquet, at which the latter gets drunk and reveals the boyars' plot. 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 dress Vladimir in royal garments and bow to him. Vladimir then leads them to the cathedral in prayer. Pyotr mistakes him for the tsar and fatally stabs him.

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

Remove ads

Cast

Remove ads

Production

Summarize
Perspective

Development

Thumb
Sergei Eisenstein in 1939

In May 1940, Sergei Eisenstein wrote to Minister of Cinematography Ivan Bolshakov about two screenplays he planned to co-write with Lev Sheinin. The first was about British World War I officer T. E. Lawrence, the second about the Beilis affair, the 1913 trial of a Jewish man who was falsely accused of killing a gentile boy. Additionally, Eisenstein had a film about Russian poet Alexander Pushkin in mind. When Bolshakov did not reply, Eisenstein and Sheinin wrote directly to Soviet leader Joseph Stalin on 31 December, expanding on their ideas for a Beilis film, but this project was rejected in January 1941.[4][5] That month Eisenstein met with Andrei Zhdanov, Chairman of the Russian Supreme Soviet, who instead commissioned on Stalin's behalf a film about the Russian tsar Ivan IV, commonly known by his epithet "the Terrible".[6][7][8]

Stalin admired Ivan IV, considering him to be a "great and wise" ruler.[9] He was interested in rehabilitating Ivan's reputation as the founder of the modern Russian state.[10][11][12] Ivan the Terrible was among a number of historical films produced during the 1930s and 1940s, intended to draw parallels between Russian historical figures and contemporary Soviet politics. Other such works included Vladimir Petrov's Peter the Great, Vsevolod Pudovkin's Minin and Pozharsky, and Eisenstein's previous film, Alexander Nevsky.[13] An official campaign to commission works of art depicting Ivan the Terrible in a positive light was launched in the winter of 1940–1941. At the same time as the commission of Eisenstein's film, a play about Ivan was commissioned, to be written by Alexey Nikolayevich Tolstoy, and several operas about Ivan were in the works. The operas were abandoned following the German invasion of the USSR in 1941.[14]

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

Eisenstein began research on the film in early 1941. Among his sources were Heinrich von Staden and Andrey Kurbsky, who wrote about their lives in Ivan's court, as well as 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.[15] Eisenstein filled over a hundred notebooks with his ideas for the film.[16]

Eisenstein submitted the first draft of the Ivan the Terrible screenplay to film studio Mosfilm in May 1941.[8][17] 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 and to downplay the role of Poland as Russia's enemy; Eisenstein also planned to show more of Ivan's positive relations with the English.[18] Bolshakov requested that he remove the scenes with the English from the script, due to historical inaccuracy. Eisenstein complied, although he would shoot the scenes anyway.[19]

Due to the invasion, Mosfilm was evacuated to Alma-Ata. Eisenstein moved there in October 1941 and completed the screenplay in December.[20] It was approved in September 1942.[21][22]

Casting

Casting for the film began in early 1942. Eisenstein invited Nikolay Cherkasov, who had previously performed the title role in Eisenstein's Alexander Nevsky, to play Ivan IV. The 39-year-old Cherkasov portrayed Ivan from the ages of 17 to 53; for the portrayal of 17-year-old Ivan, makeup artist Vasily Goriunov used adhesive to pull back the flesh on Cherkasov's face.[23][24] Mikhail Zharov, who had wanted to perform the role of Kurbsky, was instead offered the role of Malyuta. Mikhail Nazvanov was cast as Kurbsky in the summer of 1942. Erik Pyryev, son of director Ivan Pyryev, performed the role of the young Ivan, while his mother, Ada Voytsik, played the role of Ivan's mother, Elena Glinskaya.[25][26][27]

Eisenstein wanted Vsevolod Pudovkin to play Pimen, but Pudovkin was filming In the Name of the Fatherland at the time;[28] 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 credited Eisenstein with saving his life.[29][30]

Eisenstein began to consider Mikhail Kuznetsov for the role of Fyodor Basmanov after noticing his performance in Mashenka. After Kuznetsov, along with most actors working with Mosfilm, evacuated to Alma-Ata, Eisenstein offered him the role.[31] Kuznetsov, who had studied at the Moscow Art Theatre and was trained in the Stanislavski method, continually clashed with Eisenstein over acting method, as he felt that the most important part of a shot was the "living" actor, while Eisenstein focused primarily on lineal form. Eisenstein in turn grew frustrated when Kuznetsov would question the reasons for performing a scene in a specific way. Kuznetsov would later reflect that although he held great respect for Eisenstein, he felt that the director understood little about acting, and added that actors in Eisenstein's films were "in the cage of his imagination".[32][33]

For the role of Vladimir Staritsky, Eisenstein had wanted Nikolay Okhlopkov, but he was too old for the part. Therefore Kadochnikov, who had arrived in Alma-Ata to film The Defense of Tsaritsyn, was invited to play Vladimir. He also played the role of a clown in the miracle play in Part II, and was meant to play the role of Evstafy, a kinsman of Philip, in Part III. He was also considered for the role of King Sigismund. Ultimately, that part went to Pavel Massalsky.[34][35][36]

The actresses for Anastasia and Yefrosinya were found 6 months after filming began. Eisenstein convinced ballerina Galina Ulanova to do several screen tests for the role of Anastasia, 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. After several months of attempting to receive approval to cast Ranevskaya, Eisenstein relented. The role then went to Serafima Birman.[37][38] Birman was unpopular with the rest of the cast and crew, and frequently clashed with Eisenstein about the correct way she and the other actors should perform their roles. Nazvanov complained to his wife at one point that Birman "delayed things terribly with her endless conversations, proposals, and rehearsals".[39].

Music

Main article: Ivan the Terrible (Prokofiev)

The score for the films was composed by Sergei Prokofiev, with whom Eisenstein had collaborated on Alexander Nevsky.[40] Eisenstein wrote to Prokofiev in March 1942, asking him to compose the score for Ivan the Terrible; Prokofiev arrived in May.[41] Prokofiev incorporated music from an unrealized production of an adaptation of Boris Godunov into the score.[42] He did not finish writing the score of Part I until August 1944.[43] 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.[44]

Filming

Filming was delayed until April 1943 due to the ongoing invasion of the USSR.[45] Since 1924, Eisenstein had worked exclusively with cinematographer Eduard Tisse for his features. In 1942, Eisenstein became friends with Andrei Moskvin, and began to consider hiring him as cinematographer, as he wanted a different look for Ivan. However, Eisenstein was concerned that Tisse, without his protection, 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.[46]

Eisenstein was a demanding director—he would have his actors hold difficult poses while he continuously reshot scenes.[47] Mikhail Nazvanov, who played Kurbsky, recounted that at one point, when Cherkasov was hysterically crying from exhaustion, Eisenstein "looked coolly on, while eating his dinner". Nazvanov also commented that he had to "admire Eisenstein's iron tenacity as he literally tramples people's hearts and even their bodies in striding toward his goal in creating, in such hellish conditions, a monumental work of art."[48] However, the cast members recalled that Eisenstein kept the mood light-hearted on set, and that he inspired both cast and crew to believe they were engaged in one of the most significant projects of their lifetime.[49]

Most of the production was shot in Kazakhstan, in Alma-Ata;[50] several scenes were shot in the town of Kaskelen, 30 kilometers from Alma-Ata.[51][52] Filming was done at night, since electricity was limited during the day.[23] Food was difficult to access; to hide the malnutrition of the actors, the costume designer sewed cotton "muscles" into the costumes.[53][54] Eisenstein had planned to finish the film by 1944, however, production was continually delayed due to wartime shortages and illness of the personnel. By July 1944, Eisenstein still had not finished filming.[55] Production of the film was transferred to Moscow.[56] Bolshakov ordered Eisenstein to complete both Parts I and II by the end of 1944.[56] Eisenstein finished editing Part I in August.[56]

By February 1945, one-third of Part II still needed to be filmed.[57] Shooting was scheduled to begin on May 15, but could only commence on June 26.[58] The delay was down to Moskvin not being available at that time and Eisenstein insisting on working only with him, in spite of pressure from Mosfilm to work with a different cinematographer.[58] 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 are part of 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 Mosfilm ended their evacuation in Alma-Ata. While waiting for Prokofiev, Eisenstein attended a conference on color in film, and was so impressed by the vivid red colors in a documentary on the Potsdam Conference that he shot his final scenes in color.[59][60] Shooting was completed that year.[61] Mikhail Kalatozov, head of Mosfilm, ordered Eisenstein on 21 December to complete editing of Ivan and submit Part II to Mosfilm by 5 January 1946; Eisenstein submitted the film on 2 February.[44]

Planned third part

Eisenstein had originally planned to make only two parts to the film. However, by 1944, he had too much footage for two parts. He was also concerned that the reception of the film would suffer, as Part I would seem unfinished and Part II lacked a triumphant ending for Ivan. He therefore asked for, and received, permission to divide the film into three parts.[62] The third part, which began production in 1946, was abandoned after the second part was banned. Its plot was to include Ivan's growing paranoia of his followers, his attack of Novgorod and a battle against Livonian troops which Ivan wins, thus gaining access to the Baltic Sea at the cost of Malyuta's life.[63] Part III would have also introduced the characters of Heinrich von Staden and Queen Elizabeth I, played by Oleg Zhakov[3] and Mikhail Romm respectively.[64]

Thumb
Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan on 16 November 1581 by Ilya Repin, made in the 1880s. Eisenstein considered writing an ending where Ivan dies alone after murdering his son.

While the published screenplay ends with Ivan walking triumphantly toward the sea, Eisenstein contemplated several more endings for Part III. One had the aged tsar contemplating the future of Russia, and a second had him dying alone after murdering his son. Another ending had Ivan seeing a prophetic vision of Peter the Great conquering the Baltic Sea, having himself lost the sea just weeks after conquering it.[65]

Remove ads

Themes and analysis

Summarize
Perspective

Ivan as Stalin

Eisenstein wrote in 1941 that he aimed to challenge the negative interpretations of Ivan the Terrible, and to depict him as a wise and able statesman.[66] He also wrote that his depiction of the tsar 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."[67] Historian Joan Neuberger argues that Eisenstein had no intention to glorify Ivan, as he chose to focus on the oprichnina and the bloodiest years of Ivan's reign, while completely excluding his positive reforms from the film.[68] Additionally, she writes that throughout the film Eisenstein characterizes Ivan as a "visionary leader", a "brutal tyrant", and a "tragic, divided and lonely man",[69] and "challenges the audience to consider whether the ends (national unification and imperial expansion) justify the means (intimidation, demagoguery, deception and terror)."[70]

The two parts of Ivan contrast in their treatment of Stalinism. Part I has been seen by critics as supportive of the ideology, while Part II is seen as more critical.[71] Critics generally agree that Ivan is meant to represent Stalin.[72] Bernd Uhlenbruch compared the dynamic of Ivan and Kurbsky to Stalin and Trotsky, commenting that like Trotsky, Kurbsky went into exile, and compared Malyuta to Beria. He wrote that "Everything that the church representatives and the Boyards [sic] bring up against Ivan can be understood as an indictment against the Stalin regime."[73] Director Mikhail Romm, who was present at the first screening of Part II in 1946, reported that the audience saw Stalin, Beria, and the NKVD in Ivan, Malyuta, and the oprichnina respectively.[74] He suggested that the film had been banned because it had been interpreted as an attack on Stalin.[75] Film historian Neya Zorkaya commented that although Ivan was meant to glorify autocracy and justify any acts done for the sake of the "great Russian state", the effect produced was the opposite.[76]

The film has been interpreted as a defence of Stalin as well. In Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's 1962 novel One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, two characters debate the merits of Ivan the Terrible; one of them describes Eisenstein as "an ass-kisser who followed orders like a dog".[77] 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."[78] Katerina Clark wrote that the film provides "in the story of Ivan’s reign an allegory for the career of Stalin showing his greatness as a unifier of the country".[79] One reviewer for Time magazine wrote that although Eisenstein presented Ivan, and therefore Stalin, as a "paranoiac and power maniac... 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."[80]

Historicity

Eisenstein was generally uninterested in maintaining historical accuracy in his films,[81] and took liberties with historical fact to develop his narrative. He replaced Metropolitan Macarius and Sylvester with Metropolitan Philip and Pimen of Novgorod [ru], who oppose the tsar in the film. He invented a romance between Prince Kurbsky and Anastasia to create personal strife for Ivan, and to give Kurbsky a reason to resent and envy him.[82] 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.[83]

Thumb
1870s painting by Nikolai Nevrev depicting the execution of Ivan Fyodorov-Chelyadnin

Vladimir's death in the film differs from historical accounts. While it is believed that he was forced to poison himself,[84][85] in the film he is stabbed by Pyotr Volynets. Viktor Shklovsky suggests that Vladimir's death in Ivan was 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, bowed to him and then stabbed him in the heart. Vladimir's death in the film mirrors this legend: Ivan dresses Vladimir in royal robes, seats Vladimir on his throne and bows to him; he is then stabbed.[86]

Although Eisenstein was condemned in an official resolution published by the Central Committee for "ignorance in his depiction of historical facts"[87] and Stalin criticized the film for its historical inaccuracies, Cherkasov wrote in his memoirs that Stalin approved of a suggested change to show Ivan winning the Livonian War, although in fact he had been defeated.[88] Kristin Thompson writes that the reason for this change was to draw a parallel to the German invasion of the USSR, and to show the Russian nation triumphant over Germans (the film refers to the Livonian and Hanseatic nations as "German").[89]

Maureen Perrie writes that the events Eisenstein included in his original script show that he was consciously drawing a parallel to contemporary events. Eisenstein initially downplayed the role of Poland as Russia's historical enemy, as the invasion by Germany made Poland into "fellow Slav victims of German aggression". He also emphasized England's role as a Russian ally, to point to the UK being an ally of the USSR. The film also meant to show Estonians and Latvians fighting on the side of Ivan as he took the Baltic ports. Perrie writes that the film's treatment of the Baltic nations mirrored Soviet politics concerning the Baltics. Eisenstein asserts "Russia's ancient rights to the Baltic ports", depicts "Baltic peoples welcoming the Russian invaders as liberators" and stresses "Russia's benevolence towards the indigenous population".[90]

Religion

Ivan the Terrible depicts the Russian Orthodox Church as a power that supports tradition and the interest of the boyars. Historian Charles J. Halperin argues that although every character in the film is religious, the depiction of religion is explicitly negative, as all characters associated with the Church are portrayed as traitors. Halperin argues that the portrayal of Philip, who was canonized by the Church, as a scheming boyar, is particularly hostile towards the Church.[91]

Religious imagery and allusions, such as icons, appear in nearly every scene, and are used to comment on the nature of the characters.[92] Eisenstein tasked the makeup artist, Vasily Goriunov, with making Ivan resemble Nebuchadnezzar, Judas, Mephistopheles, and Jesus Christ at different points.[93] During the film, Ivan watches a play about Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, a biblical story that 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.[94]

The film is replete with comparisons of Ivan to Christ. 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 his foot to Renaissance depictions of Mary Magdalene mourning Christ.[95] Neuberger compares the scene where Ivan holds his dying mother to the Virgin Mary holding Christ.[92] Daniil Lyakhovich, writing for Iskusstvo Kino, compares him to an Antichrist figure. While Christ sacrifices himself to perform God's will, Ivan sacrifices his country to assert his own will, independent from God. He ultimately builds a world where he takes the place of God and goes against the morals of his religion.[96]

Gender and homoeroticism

According to Albert LaValley, Eisenstein associated men with physical strength, power and leadership, and women with maternity, support, and moral strength. In his films, masculine women and feminine men are negative characters. LaValley asserts that in Ivan the Terrible, masculinity is always tied to power, while femininity is associated with weakness. For example, Yefrosinya's masculinity "makes her horrifying and grotesque, but nonetheless powerful and a worthy antagonist to Ivan", while Vladimir's femininity makes him "cowardly, fearful and dependent on his mother" and "an impotent fool who can be simply gulled and disposed of."[97] Similarly, Joan Neuberger characterizes Sigismund as a feminine king who seems strong but is actually weak, and Elizabeth as a masculine queen who seems weak but is truly strong.[98] David Gillespie asserts that Ivan's political triumphs are represented as a triumph of his masculinity; however masculinity is also charged with negative attributes such as violence and aggression.[99] Conversely Gillespie argues that the film's only sympathetic characters, Anastasia and Vladimir, are also the only feminine characters. Further, only the feminine Vladimir "possess[es] true human feeling and decency", and his death marks the "final destruction of the feminine, all that is soft, humane and civilized."[100]

Ivan the Terrible has been interpreted as having a homoerotic subtext, particularly in regards to the characters of Fyodor Basmanov, Ivan, and Vladimir. Gillespie comments that the male body is depicted with "erotic fascination".[101] Eisenstein wrote in his production notes Fyodor "must love" Ivan and described his role as the replacement of Anastasia, or as an ersatz version of Anastasia.[102][103] In one of the final scenes, Fyodor dances in drag, dressed in a parody of Anastasia's clothing.[104] [105] Gillespie describes Fyodor as "replac[ing] Anastasia in the marital bed", while Sultan Usuvaliev describes him as the incarnation of Anastasia's love for Ivan.[106][103] Viktor Shklovsky noted that the historical Fyodor Basmanov was alleged to have sexual relations with men and suggested that the banquet scene drew inspiration from this image of Basmanov.[107]

Dwight Macdonald interpreted the characters as being homosexual, commenting 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."[108] Eisenstein's biographer, Marie Seton, interpreted Vladimir as homosexual, and asserted that by killing Vladimir on screen, Eisenstein was metaphorically killing his own supposed homosexuality.[109] Thomas Waugh in his analysis of Eisenstein's work wrote that Vladimir was "the only explicit reference to homosexuality in Eisenstein's entire career", and suggested that Eisenstein portrayed him in a negative manner because of the need to portray homosexuality as "evil and decadent".[110] Kristin Thompson and Ronald Bergan disagreed with Macdonald's interpretation of the characters as homosexual. Bergan wrote 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 (which Eisenstein admired), and that none of the characters were depicted as homosexual.[111][112]

Power

Thumb
Ivan attains power at the cost of personal connection. This shot emphasizes his distance from other people.[113]

Eisenstein wrote that he considered the main theme of Ivan the Terrible to be power.[114] In his pursuit of power, Ivan gives up personal connections, and feels loneliness, because his love is not for other people, but for power.[115] Eisenstein believed that adult cruelty was the product of childhood vulnerability and fears, such as the vulnerability suffered by young Ivan.[116] 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.[117] The film was intended to end with Ivan reaching the Baltic Sea, victorious but alone, having lost or destroyed all those close to him.[118] Neuberger writes that by the end of the story, he has achieved complete power, at the price of individual isolation and tragedy, and left Russia in ruins.[119] The film depicts individual power and an independent Russia as only possible through violence and retaliation.[116] Daniil Lyakhovich asserts that the portrayal of tyrannical power in Ivan the Terrible is unusual in Soviet film because it is of "glory, bought with blood".[120]

Remove ads

Release

Summarize
Perspective

Ivan the Terrible, Part I was screened for the Committee on Cinema Affairs in October 1944. Members of the council were disappointed with the film, criticizing the characterization of Ivan IV, Malyuta Skuratov, and the oprichnina. They demanded the removal of the prologue of Ivan's childhood (part of which would be reinserted into Part II as flashbacks),[121][122] more emphasis on Ivan's accomplishments as Tsar, and a scene with the oprichniki to make them less sinister. Council members such as Aleksei Dikiy, Igor Savchenko and Boris Gorbatov criticized Eisenstein's failure to characterize Ivan as a powerful and accomplished leader. The quality of the acting and style also was criticized.[123] Part I was screened for Stalin in December 1944 and premiered in Moscow on 16 January 1945.[a] 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 on 27 January 1946.[126][127] For their work on Part I, Eisenstein, Cherkasov, Prokofiev, Moskvin, Tisse, and Birman were each awarded a Stalin Prize.[128]

The second film, Ivan The Terrible, Part II: The Boyars' Plot, was submitted for screening in February 1946.[124][129] The film received heavy criticism from the Central Committee. Efim Levin wrote that this reaction was because the film was expected to "exonerate Ivan the Terrible, to show that the blood was not spilled in vain".[130] Ivan Pyryev compared the depiction of Ivan to the Grand Inquisitor and called the oprichnina "16th-century fascists"[131] and stated that the portrayal of Ivan was completely unsympathetic.[132] Alexander Dovzhenko reportedly stated that "Such a film about such a Russia, the Kremlin - could serve as fantastic agitation against us."[133] In spite of this, Eisenstein insisted on screening Part II for Stalin, who called it a "nightmare".[134][135] Stalin criticized Eisenstein's Ivan as being "a weak-willed Hamlet", and the oprichnina as being too similar to the Ku Klux Klan.[136] Part II was then banned by the Central Committee on 5 March 1946.[137][138] 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.[139][140] A year later, on 10 February 1948, he died of a heart attack.[139][141]

On 6 May 1958, Mosfilm screened Part II for a group of historians who were asked whether it could be shown to Soviet viewers. The historians widely agreed that Part II was appropriate viewing, as it "could not discredit [Soviet] art, ideology, or aims",[142] and recommended its release to the Ministry of Culture.[143] Part II was released in the USSR on 1 September 1958.[144] In October, it received its world premiere at the Brussels Exposition.[145]

Ivan the Terrible was restored under the direction of Karen Shakhnazarov and presented at the 2015 Cannes Film Festival.[146] In 2021, it was re-released for theaters in select Russian cities.[147]

Remove ads

Reception

Summarize
Perspective

The film has been polarizing amongst viewers.[148][149] It has been noted for its complexity, and consistently ranked as one of Eisenstein's best films. 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.[150][151] According to Yuri Tsivian, it has been called "the most complex movie ever made".[152][153] Critic Jean de Baroncelli described the film as "a masterpiece, and the apotheosis of the cinematic genius of Eisenstein".[154] Film Anton Dolin has called Ivan the Terrible "one of the most important films of the 20th century" and described it as Eisenstein's masterpiece.[155] Contemporary reception, however, was mixed.

Reception in the USSR

The first part was received ambivalently by audiences in the USSR upon release.[156][157] Boris Vengerovsky, who was 13 when the first part was released, recounted that when he attended a showing, the room was full at the beginning; by the end, only four people remained in the room.[157] Contemporary accounts from other viewers also show dislike for the film. Future chess grandmaster Mikhail Botvinnik commented that the film was a "boring art gallery",[158] and sculptor Vera Mukhina criticized the "lack of a great tragedy of the human character".[159]

However, it received some positive critical reviews. Critic Boris Romashov [ru], writing for Izvestiya, called the first part a "masterpiece of cinematographic art" and praised the acting, cinematography, and set design.[160] Vsevolod Vishnevsky praised Part I in his 1945 review for Pravda.[161] However, upon viewing Part II in 1947, Vishnevsky wrote a negative review, commenting that Eisenstein was "too Western". Alexander Dovzhenko also disliked Ivan, and considered Eisenstein to be "up to his neck...in Western aesthetics".[162] Natalya Sokolova wrote for Iskusstvo Kino in 1958 upon the release of the second part that the film was the greatest work of each of its participants, in spite of its flaws, and praised Cherkasov's acting in particular.[163]

Reception elsewhere

When the first part was first screened in France, the reception was negative among viewers, but positive among critics.[164] In the United States, Part I was met coldly by critics.[165] Part II, upon release in 1958, was met with general acclaim.[166] Film critic 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.[167] In contrast, Crowther harshly criticized Part II, calling it a "pale extension" of Part I.[168] Film critic Pauline Kael called the film "lacking in human dimensions...True, every frame in it looks great...but as a movie, it's static, grandiose, and frequently ludicrous."[169] Orson Welles, in his review of Part I for the New York Post, wrote that the flaws of the film were "what goes sour in the work of any artist whose bent is for eloquence. The Tsar's beard, for instance, cutting like a mighty sickle through the hammer blows of the drama, isn't nearly as entertaining to the audience as it was to the director."[170]

Ivan the Terrible was awarded four out of four stars by critic Roger Ebert and included on his list of "Great Movies" in 2012. Ebert praised the scope, visuals and Cherkasov's performance in Part I, while criticizing the story and Cherkasov's performance in Part II, and commented that "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."[171] 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."[172]

Legacy

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.[173][174] Cahiers du Cinéma in 1959 named it the fourth-best film of all time.[175] It was also included among Harry Medved's The Fifty Worst Films of All Time.[176]

Directors Akira Kurosawa, Éric Rohmer, and Slava Tsukerman named Ivan the Terrible as among their favorite films.[177][178][148] Charlie Chaplin called the film "the greatest historic film that has ever been made".[179][180] Russian-American director Michael Chekhov considered the film excellent from a director's point of view and an artistic point of view, but criticized the quality of the acting.[181][182] Soviet director Andrei Tarkovsky watched the film "with rapt attention"; it is believed to have influenced his film Andrei Rublev.[183][184]

In November 2024, Russian film director Alexei German Jr. and producer Konstantin Ernst announced that a film about the making of Ivan the Terrible was in production. As of November, the actors for Eisenstein, Prokofiev, and Cherkasov have not been cast.[185]

Remove ads

References

Further reading

External links

Loading related searches...

Wikiwand - on

Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.

Remove ads
Remove ads