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

爱森斯坦（Eisenstein，Sergey）在人生的末尾拍出的力作，本是接受斯.大,.林的一项政治任务。

斯.大,.林想让他拍一部反映沙皇残暴的政治宣教片，但随着爱氏学习的深入，以及1942年片厂搬迁至阿拉木图，他有时间做深刻的反思。

E最终把这部影片拍成了兼有自传性质、领袖传记和解释俄罗斯历史等多重任务的影片，这是斯.大,.林始料不及的。西方也把这部作品当成描写极权的分析样本。👑

这部电影里有两个核心词汇：boyar和oprichniki，前者是沙皇时代的特权贵族，有人说就是杜马；后者可译为特辖军，是一只特务武装。

先着重谈后者，他们戴黑帽、着黑衣、骑乘黑马🕋，专司侦查可能的反叛，他们可以不经审判就处刑、放逐、处决嫌犯(特别是针对贵族)。属于一种保卫皇室的禁卫集团，类似于中国的东厂西厂。这样一只特务骑兵初仅有1000人，后逐渐扩编到6000人。特辖军在伊凡四世的指挥下，血腥地镇压了诺夫哥罗德的"叛乱"，并肃清了所有的boyar。平时他们欺压良善、扰民、制造冤狱，这也成就了伊凡四世的「恐怖」之名。 整个两部《伊凡雷帝》可以简单概括成从倚重boyar到倚重oprichniki，建立恐怖的特辖统治的过程。集权可以用来肃清异议分子，造成前所未有的高效率，俄罗斯得到了前所未有的强盛和广大领土，而众多的boyar，乃至沙皇身边的亲族，却遭到了血腥的镇压。这种发生在16世纪的矛盾性与斯.大,.林时代并没有本质的区别。沙皇与“沙皇”是必要的邪恶。 爱森斯坦赋予此片以心理深度，这远远超出了斯.大,.林心中简单刻板的暴君形象的预期。Sergey在第二部的开头插播了一段伊凡的童年，说的是boyars毒死了他的妈妈，并一手遮天地干政，甫成少年的伊凡下令逮捕他们。这是日后成为恐怖伊凡所有行为的心理范型。自小失怙，心中充满孤独，渴望权力带给他的安全感，并不惜牺牲自己最亲近的人，做事充满冒险性，容不得异见。Sergey、Joseph和Ivan都有类似的心理型。

电影参考的历史肖像

对于谢尔盖来说，世界上哪里有什么人民艺术家，只有沙皇的爪牙而已。