Ivan the Terrible / Nikolai Cherkasov / - the first king of Russia
Anastasia / Lyudmila Tselikovskaya / - the first, beloved wife of Ivan the Terrible
Efrosinya Staritskaya /Seraphima Birman / - Ivan's aunt, dissatisfied with the fact that the tsar decided to rule alone without relying on the boyars; hatches evil plans, dreams of putting his son on the throne
Vladimir /Paul Kadochnikov / - the son of Efrosynya, the desire to become a king does not burn, a weak-willed guy, not strong in mind, but weak to entertainment
Andrei Kurbsky /Mikhail Nazvanov / - a friend of Ivan, in love with Anastasia and himself thinking that power is sweet and beckoning
Malyuta Skuratov / Mikhail Zharov / - close to the king, oprichnik
All of us studied history at school, someone is still fond of it, someone is not very interested in it. But there is hardly anyone who does not know about Ivan the Terrible. Most often, when mentioning this name, many have the image of a half-crazy old man, a cruel almost maniac, obsessed with ideas of endless conspiracies against him.
Well, I'm not going to analyze Grozny's personality today. I will not mention the historical inconsistencies shown in the picture, of which, of course, there are many. Well, it is impossible for us (and not only for us) to make films with full historical authenticity showing what really happened. You need to add dramas, melodramas and other components. Although I, as a history buff, assure you that even without these supplements, any history and biography of any prominent figure would bring to tears, and in the heart would strike. But ... the viewer needs heat, as a rule, emphasis is placed on it.
I will talk exclusively about the production of the great and beautiful Sergei Eisenstein, whose picture “Ivan the Terrible” for me personally became an acquaintance with this famous director. In a nutshell, I'm amazed. Struck in the heart, amazed and in love. This is a stunning picture, so cinematic and beautiful that it is impossible to describe it in words, you need to see it yourself.
Both parts of Grozny were filmed during the war. It is believed that Stalin himself had a hand in creating the picture. For many contemporaries, this fact causes bewilderment - the Soviet leader "orders" a film about the autocrat, whom, believe, recently managed to overthrow? But let’s not talk about this today, because the question of historical facts and the situation with Stalin is too wide an area for dialogue. So I will return to the film as an exhibit of film culture.
In the picture, we are shown a rather long way of Grozny: the wedding to the kingdom, the wedding with Anastasia, the capture of Kazan, the illness of the tsar, the death of Anastasia (which many contemporaries consider the main reason that Grozny, if I may say so, “broke up” /, oprichnina. And in the foreground is the personality of the king, his transformation, his torment. By the way, the torment of other people by order of the king is not particularly shown, moreover, they are presented as almost arbitrary decisions of the oprichniki. Of course, you can see something about this, but we agreed today not to do it.
The acting of the modern (I would even say young) viewer not only will not surprise, but even probably scare away from this picture. A huge number of close-ups. The endless game of facial expressions: extended eyes, moving eyebrows, rapid movements and immediately frozen postures ... All this is no longer used, you will not see it in American contemporary films, but I personally consider all this more than appropriate in this film about Grozny. Personally, such techniques helped me to immerse myself in the picture and enjoy it.
Amazed by the amazing play of light and shadow, endless play, visible almost every minute. And all this is emphasized by the magnificent music of Sergei Prokofiev: whether it is just instrumental compositions, or stylized as Russian folk songs, or a description of the situation in the picture, stylized as church chant. Excellent!
I can’t say that the modern viewer will be surprised by the work of the director, let’s not forget that the picture was shot during the war. It's pretty concise. But the costumes are great. Amused by the image of the court of Sigismund, the clothes of his courtiers. And also voiced myths that babies are eaten in Moscow. Nothing changes in the world, not even rumors, do you think?
I watched a movie marathon where I was in 1944. I have to admit, I only wanted to see the first part. In the end, contemporaries of the film in general this part after the release of the first waited 13 years. But couldn't stop... This is really a magnificent monumental film canvas, which every self-respecting moviegoer must see.
Recently revised the film Ivan Grozny (directed by Sergei Eisenstein, 1944-1945) and ... and was very discouraged.
Because – if you judge soberly (outside the cinema hierarchies), all the more so – if you understand when, by whom and where “Ivan the Terrible” was filmed and assembled, then it becomes annoying. A more ridiculous and inappropriate film is hard to imagine, by God.
Personally, I love and respect these movies. And I really like camera films, that is, films in which the directing is built primarily on the “realization of the picture” (and the atmosphere). But here, in Grozny, it so happens that there is nothing but this very “picture”. There is no clear causal relationship between the characters. All characters and images are minimally flat and template. Costumes, decorations, etc. – smell the most cruel “cranberries”. In the absence of a coherent plot - this kind of historical (?!) film actually turns out to be a comic book in the worst sense of the word.
But even that's not a problem. The real problem of Ivan the Terrible is that it is collected on a mockingly minimal number of techniques and expressive means, namely:
1. rotation of the eyes (anface) on a close-up;
2. tossing the head (in profile) on the middle plane;
3. hanging shadows (over people and other objects) on the general plane.
Actually, this is all the basic techniques that Eisenstein uses when he needs to show something bright, important, significant.
For “silent” expressionism, yes, OK, these are understandable and recognizable techniques. But these techniques – in the 40s – already look catastrophic anachronism. Moreover, the entire emotional component in Grozny is based on these techniques (and not on, say, dialogues, monologues and interaction between characters in principle).
Technically, yes, it’s an interesting film experiment. But stylistically – a clear step back (I can’t help but recall the 1934 film The Scarlet Empress). And if you also take into account where and when “Ivan the Terrible” was shot, then ... nothing but bewilderment this film can not cause. In my opinion, it would still be more logical to wait for the end of the war, and then to spend public funds on this kind of cranberry "author's movie". . .
The film “Ivan the Terrible” tries to answer the question of why the tsar introduced such cruel orders in Russia, being emotionally unstable from childhood. The surroundings tried to harass him through ridicule and the murder of his wife (there is a version that she died herself). A friend betrayed him at a critical time. All these events destroyed the virtue that remained in him. But Ivan did not break, but “showed his teeth”, paying for all the offenses inflicted on him by the hated boyars. The analogue of the character is an even more paranoid image of the king from the novel “Prince of Silver”, where Ivan the Terrible is shown as a beast that does not know mercy.
It is impossible to leave the film for two reasons. This is, first of all, an amazing Soviet school of acting. All emotions, all feelings are conveyed with amazing artistry, as if I came to a theatrical performance. Talented actors of the Soviet school of acting have won places in the pantheon of fame of the most outstanding actors in history (if it existed). And, secondly, the era, and the main character. Not many people have been able to focus so much on their personality. Some have achieved this by virtue, some by terror. The image of Ivan the Terrible turned out to be so vivid and natural that he seemed to be brought back from the past and asked to briefly tell the story of his life. In the scenes of anger, the actor’s face curves so much that after that Homelander (from the series “Boys”) seems cute.
The first part of the film more reveals the characters and events of that era, the second describes the childhood of the future king, his fatherlessness, and the reasons why he became so harsh. The picture is a beautiful heritage inherited from Soviet times, so it is highly recommended for viewing.
One of the Russian films, which received worldwide fame and recognized as a significant cultural heritage of mankind, is Ivan the Terrible (1945) by Sergei Eisenstein.
This painting has a complicated history of creation. It is claimed that the idea of creating a biographical tape about the first crowned tsar of All Russia was expressed by Joseph Stalin himself during the Second World War. The project was entrusted to the eminent Sergei Eisenstein, who shot a series of high-quality historical films, including “The Strike”, “Battleship Potemkin” and “Alexander Nevsky”.
The plan was to create a large-scale trilogy. But it didn't go according to plan. The first Ivan the Terrible was published in 1945, liked both the public and Stalin. But the second is said to have angered Stalin, it was forbidden to show and it was released only in 1958. And the third part was never filmed, since Eisenstein died in 1948.
If you take a look at these two tapes, you can easily understand why these two tapes were waiting for such a different fate.
In the first part we see the story of a very strong and purposeful young Ivan Vasilyevich. He decides to unite Russia, protect it from external enemies and therefore fight the boyars, who, in order to please their vested interests, do not want the existence of a single strong government at the head of the country.
The second part is stated as a story about the oprichnin and victory of Ivan the Terrible over the boyar conspiracy. But the audience is invited to watch the ruler, who since childhood fears death at the hands of his inner circle and who crawls on his knees in front of a representative of the church, begging for support. In addition, the black-and-white film suddenly turns into red tones, which in the years of the USSR could not but be associated with communist power. And Sergei Eisenstein seemed to equate the color red with the insane cruelty of the reborn tsar.
Ivan the Terrible is a very interesting film for the modern audience. Since Sergei Eisenstein is a director who moved from the era of silent cinema to the era of sound cinema, in the ego of the last picture, a lot has been preserved from the standards of silent cinema.
Heroes here do not speak, but rather recite slogans, being almost in the same location. Briefly, majesticly, enthusiastically: "You have power - use force!", "Two Romes have fallen, and the third - Moscow stands, and there will be no Fourth Rome!" And to that third Rome, the power of Moscow, I shall henceforth be the sole master, alone! We need a strong power to bend the backbone of those who oppose the unity of the Russian power, for in a single, strong, united kingdom inside, you can be firm outside. Most of the slogans sounding in this film sound very familiar - we heard them in the Soviet years and hear them right now.
A reference to the silent cinema is the play of actors - all characters express their emotions exaggeratedly. Actors throw slogans and cement their significance with demonstratively cast glances. They hunch and straighten their backs, operate with wide gestures. This in many old films looks ridiculous and incredibly outdated, but in Ivan the Terrible, on the contrary, even now, betrays incredible majesty to what is happening.
In addition, Sergei Eisenstein built his entire narrative on poetic symbols. "Ivan the Terrible" - does not carry historically reliable reflections of events. It is a symbol, a metaphor, poetry, which is created to reflect ideas, meanings and characters.
So if you haven't seen Ivan the Terrible, fix it. It’s a great movie in terms of language. Plus, if you want to speculate about the history of Russia, it can give you a lot of reason to think and compare with today. Here we see bad boyars who prefer to flee to other countries than solve the problems of their country. We see the image of a ruler who is forced to fight not only and not so much with external enemies as with internal traitors. Well, the idea “good tsar – bad boyars” – this seems to be a really spiritual bond, which was, is and will be in the self-consciousness of Russia.
Fat point in the reviews of 2022. Particularly inspired can try to find in the film allusions to the current reality, but I will allow myself to focus on the picture itself.
History of creation. It is well known that "Ivan the Terrible" is an order StalinEisenstein, received by the latter even before the outbreak of the war. And in a sense, this order put the director between life and death. The great terror had been going on for several years, and the authorities felt the need to explain to the population in the most accessible way – through film art – the need for a strong power capable (and even forced) to “break the ridges.” In the guise of his beloved Ivan IV – one of the most controversial figures in Russian history, quite comparable to Stalin himself – the leader saw a conduit of such power. Eisen (as everyone from friends to students called him) would not have been a great creator if he had dutifully executed the order. He continually argued with the amendments to his 200-page script, insisted on his vision and on keeping the estimate (and the time was already wartime). The first series fell to the liking of the chief censor, the second went to the shelf, simultaneously throwing Eisen back to the watershed "life-death". And the focus in such different acceptance of parts of one whole lies in the sudden turn of events of the plot.
Plot. Before us is the wedding of young Prince Ivan Vasilyevich (Nikolai Cherkasov) to the kingdom. He was the first tsar in Russian history. Independently (selecting the metropolitan from his hands!), he hoistes a crown on his head and erupts, one might say, with a programmatic speech, from which the rather radical, cruel even intentions of the newly minted tsar are clear, who is trying with all his might to strengthen his personal power and show the boyars his mother. The first series is devoted to the assertion of Ivan on the Russian throne. Surrounding himself with loyal henchmen - Malyuta (Zharov), Kurbsky (Nazvanov), Basmanov (Kuznetsov), confronting the related but hostile clan of the Staritskys (Birman and Kadochnikov), the tsar encounters various obstacles - the Tatar challenge, the poisoning of his wife, the betrayal of former associates - and uses these events to take revenge to strengthen the one-face, because he is more convinced that he is not only a strong man in the ruler, but an iron hand. Obviously, this is the justification for the events that will take place in Russia after almost 400 years and in the atmosphere of which the film was shot.
The second series shows the apogee of Ivan’s desire to subdue and crush everything. Oprichniki – the same NKVD-shniks (I would compare them with the current collectors, except, however, that the latter are not “people of sovereigns”) – rule the ball in Russia. The tsar is increasingly withdrawing into himself, into reflection, to the fact that the customer is rightly indignant, saying that this is already a departure from TZ, he did not order Hamlet. But the biggest surprise awaits him near the end of the series, when the screen flashes red, and we see almost a ball of Satan, at which Ivan shouts a word recently circulated by another Ivan, a former priest, in the main square of the country. The rampage of the oprichniki and the oppression of the common population – should Soviet society see this as an excuse for current life? What to do, you can’t fight against history. Although, to be fair, it should be said that Eisen did not follow history very freely with it. But nevertheless, the film ends with the fact that in the fire of red, green, blue lights, the semi-mad tsar rises above the world and in a thunderous voice reports that the enemies of Russia are defeated. Where were they, the enemies? Inside it...
Artistic features. I think, like many, I was discouraged by some frank theatricalism, operetrism, excessiveness in everything - the work of actors with their broken gestures, quizzes, pure literary speeches and stage intonation; sharp angles, the play of light. It's confusing at first, although it's not about whether you believe or not. But then, just like the eye gets used to the darkness, you tune in to that wave. Indeed, Eisen could not remove the apology of terror except to depict it underline theatrically, “over the edge”, on a high note and boiling point – on the one hand, and conventionality, flatness, one-dimensionality in terms of display – on the other. In other words, he says it was (is), and it seems that it was not (and not now). But the astute viewer understands what is what. The film, of course, does not tolerate a cursory look, moreover – and the first time it can not be overcome. It took me a year to try it a little bit.
Again, one of the main co-authors is the music of Prokofiev, also playing by the rules of convention. The same function is performed by shadows, angles, environment.
Creators. What about Eisenstein? His name today, alas, is known to a wide audience only insofar as it is known. He, unlike Stanislavsky, with a large number of students (there is evidence that the assistant on the set was a young Eldar Ryazanov), and even with constant attempts to theorize art and create a concept, his own teaching and his own school did not leave. To shoot “like Eisenstein” is comical, it is difficult to top it – not because the bar is high, but because he created his own sphere, and no one can work in it anymore.
The cast is interesting. I, as I think, and a number of others, would like to see in the role of Euphrosyne the one whom Eisen himself saw in this role – Faina Ranevskaya. It would be an unmistakable, one hundred percent hit. She was an outstanding actress, first of all, which may seem unexpected – dramatic. But this talent remained almost entirely on the theatrical stage, in the cinema we can only see in her Rose Skorokhod in "Dream" the tragic image of a strong woman ... However, Bierman played talented.
Cherkasov in the role of Grozny - that's the character, that's the power! And even though he played the ruler of Russia in Eisen’s previous film, these are completely different characters – he showed them completely different. They were good and convincing in their images of Kuznetsov and Navanov. It's funny to see the old man's fool.
Some say the film was ahead of its time. And it seems to me that more successful than the gap between two rounds of repression, there is no time for such filming. In the past, they would have clearly cut, scolded and many more “for-.” Later, it would not be so impressive. This, apparently, is one of the hidden artistic techniques, otherwise how to explain that “Ivan the Terrible” amazes even now, and even taking into account what years it is.
Returning to the beginning of the review, I will say that there are many parallels to today. Maybe that’s why the movie is so special?
Ivan the Terrible - in domestic and Western history is presented as a bloody maniac and ghoul. Starting with the historian Nikolai Karamzin in the 18th century and ending with the director Pavel Lungin in the 21st, the society affirms the idea that the first Russian tsar is a mad tyrant, embodying everything bad that can be in a ruler.
In 1943, the genius of world cinema Eisenstein on the tip of Joseph Stalin shot two series about Ivan the Terrible, where he tried to present him as a positive hero.
The 1st series received a positive assessment from Stalin and the mark “could”. 2 series - was defeated, sent for revision and lay in the archives until 1958.
This happened because the director incorrectly, according to Stalin, assessed the role of Grozny and his oprichnina.
The film clearly shows the conflict between the tsar and the tribal aristocracy of Russia - boyars or, as they would now be called, oligarchs.
The film begins with the wedding of Ivan to the kingdom, where the hero voices political tasks and declares the interests of the state with his personal. In a specific, theatrical form, the doubts of the boyars are shown. They have their own vested interests that do not coincide with the interests of the state. Then the king finds support among the people, from among whom he will recruit the oprichniki. Of the several bright characters, of course, the Skurat Minute stands out. He closely follows all the actions of the boyars. For example, in the film Skuratov first saw the betrayal of Kurbsky.
In the film, which is surprisingly attentive to the study of sources, caricatured but accurately shows the class interests of the boyars and the inevitability of conflict with state power. Thus, the oprichniki of Grozny, like the tsar himself, become a progressive force, stand up for the defense of the Fatherland, prevent slovenishness and zeal. This is what happens in Episode 1 of the film.
Episode 2 shows the development of the Tsar's character ... not for the better. Grozny constantly doubts, hysterics and provokes. The oprichniki degenerated and turned into some dancing demons. Boyars did not look better against this background, but you can feel sympathy for some of them (traitor and traitor Kurbsky, for example). The film ends again with patriotic slogans that do not go well with the plot shown.
Eisenstein’s movie looks strange, but interesting. You just have to accept the terms of the game. When actors intentionally overplay the theater, the viewer has no doubt about the characters, their thoughts and intentions. Separately, camera solutions and the game of light and shadow look great in the cinema. The music of Prokofiev sounds great and creates an atmosphere.
Summing up, we can confidently recommend watching this film. Comparing series. Evaluate the plot from Stalin’s point of view or view the film as Stalin. In general, watching and discussing this movie is still fascinating.
Costs of the profession: lot of the throne (Ivan the Terrible I and II)
Of course, the Soviet director Sergei Eisenstein was an expert in his craft, but his last work, staged in the biographical-historical genre, Ivan the Terrible (1944), slightly disappointed me. I liked the story, but the whole impression was spoiled by the acting, but I will not run ahead. Sergey Mikhailovich himself acted as a director and writer of the script that the first part, the second, which was filmed in 1945 under the title: “Ivan the Terrible”. Tale two: The Boyar conspiracy. As in all films of the Soviet director, a huge work was done. I pay tribute to the people who created the scenery for these paintings. Looking at them, I had no doubt that this was the chamber and throne room of the Tsar of All Russia Ivan IV. I pay tribute to the costumers. The robes of the prince himself and all his subjects correspond exactly to a thousand five hundred years. The first part of the film is 1 hour 35 minutes, the second has a timekeeping of 1 hour 22 minutes. The paintings are black and white, but in the second part, in the scene where the tsar feasts and receives his cousin Vladimir Andreevich Staritsky as a guest, everything is in color, and also, in the same second part, the finale is also in color, where the tsar, sitting on the throne, says: “We will not let Russia offend.” Make-up work deserves praise. Actor Nikolai Cherkasov made up so that, from the real tsar can not be distinguished, of course, taking into account the representation of the prince in the minds of modern people.
As a person who is no stranger to history, it was very interesting to see this work, especially since the director and author of the script was an outstanding master, and even more to the script approved by Joseph Vissarionovich. Unfortunately, I was born in a completely different era and I can’t judge how people behaved in 1547: how they held themselves, what gestures and facial expressions they had, but in my opinion, the actors overdid it in this film. All the actors outplayed even N. Cherkasov, who so convincingly played in the film “Alexander Nevsky” of the same director. I couldn’t understand why the actors moved like that, especially the king himself. His gestures, his gait, which was particularly annoying, was the way all the actors protruded their eyes. As always, the operator Eduard Tisse coped brilliantly with his task with his colleague Andrei Moskvin. I was particularly impressed by scenes in which the camera work is visible even to the unsophisticated eye: scenes in which the silhouette of the king (the shadow on the wall) dominated everything, and also in the close-up shot we see the face of the prince, and people at a distance in small figures. In my opinion, in these shots, the creators deliberately deified the king, showing us what the king was to the people: majestic and formidable. The music, which was written by a famous composer who worked with Sergey Mikhailovich, I did not like it at all. She cut her ear. After watching two parts, I had a terrible headache.
In the first part of the film, Prince Ivan Vasilyevich proclaims himself tsar and puts the boyars in his place with his speech: “Two Romes fell, and the third – Moscow – is worth the fourth – not to be!” And to this: to the third power, the power of Moscow, I shall henceforth be alone. Thus, he automatically became the enemy of the boyars. Unlike other productions, I liked this picture because the tsar was shown as a real warrior, especially in the scenes where he cunningly captured Kazan. Ivan the Terrible creates an oprichnina (deprivation of boyar powers) and leaves Moscow, heading for Alexandrov Sloboda. With these scenes, the creators showed us the king as a very cunning and intelligent leader.
In the second part of the film, Ivan Vasilyevich increasingly feels loneliness. He often calls himself an orphan. It shows us that even great rulers need someone. Their message is that there is nothing worse than loneliness, especially if a person is old.
I read an article in which it is stated that J. V. Stalin himself started to put a film about the first tsar of all Russia and a better candidate than Sergei Mikhailovich Eisenstein could not choose. The script was claimed by Joseph Vissarionovich himself. All I knew about the king was that he was very cruel and killed his own son. But Sergei Mikhailovich revealed to me the real Ivan the Terrible, a tsar who did not spare himself, wishing to unite the Russian lands. He was a good man, a fair man, but the boyars prevented him in every way. If the goal of the creators was to show the audience Ivan the Terrible, as a man who was forced to become “terrible”, a man who believed in his work, respected his friends, although they betrayed him and loved his wife Anastasia, but was fearless, fair and loving his land, then I think they succeeded. But it was possible only thanks to the script, but not the actors.
Strong tsar against boyars or Game for the throne in Russian
Finally, I was able to see this legendary picture of the outstanding Soviet director Sergei Eisenstein! I remember that in a distant and very distant childhood he was played on some channel, but I remember only the episode with the capture of Kazan. Now, after a long time, with a lot of knowledge and experience, I decided to reconsider. And you know what, the result made me happy. A masterpiece, unfortunately, as the same 'Alexander Nevsky' this picture I can not call even despite my respect for Sergei and Nikolai Cherkasov, but about everything, as they say in order. Unfortunately, it was not without the disadvantages, which I must call as an honest person. In the meantime, here is my brief opinion - a strong picture of a strong king! So let’s look at all the pros and cons of this classic of Soviet cinema.
So, pluses:
1. The scenery - here we must pay tribute to the creators, because they plunged us into the era of Ivan the Terrible in the conditions of the Great Patriotic War, when even with food there were problems, not to mention expensive scenery. For the most part, they were filmed in nature. But even this was enough to immerse the viewer in that distant historical era. Falsehood is almost nowhere observed (except for one point, which is more detailed in the minuses). Even the capture of Kazan managed to make beautifully, and most importantly - to observe historical authenticity.
2. You can talk about costumes from this picture for a long time. Yes, what do I say at all, if the costume of Ivan the Terrible was used on the set of the film Leonid Gaidai & #39; Ivan Vasilyevich changes profession' - my favorite Soviet picture. Costumes are also historically reliable, even foreigners look different, even representatives of European courts, Lithuanians, Poles, representatives of the Holy Roman Empire, Kazan ambassadors. Well, the costumes of the tsar are a real masterpiece of the creators, who have done a huge job, working in the archives and consulting with specialists. Deserved praise.
3. Historical authenticity - I have already written about this, but it is not a sin to mention it again, because then, and especially now, the creators of historical paintings are rather frivolous with historical material, sometimes important details are simply thrown out, and insignificant ones bulge out of all the crevices. In those days when this picture was shot, of course, but to a lesser extent. Everything here is almost perfect. Of course, some historical facts have been slightly revised, some have been smoothed out, but in general this does not violate the general picture.
4. The Tsar's personality - ah, how long has the dispute about Ivan the Terrible been going on? Half consider him a bloody executioner and tyrant who drove Russia into the abyss of the Middle Ages, the other half praise him as a great statesman who finished off the fragments of the Golden Horde, carried out successful reforms, and reined in the eternally discontented boyars who plotted against him. Personally, I am inclined to the second, at least on such a simple fact: during the reign of Ivan the Terrible, about five thousand people were executed (who will insist on fifty thousand killed only in Novgorod, but there is no evidence of it), while at the same time in France, in the reign of King Henry Valois, Bartholomew’s Night occurred, during which fifteen thousand people were killed in Paris alone, and throughout France there were fifty thousand of them, and in England Elizabeth the First Tudor (' The Good Queen Bessy') executed eight thousand people during the entire reign. Now you see why? And judging by the figures of the reign of Ivan the Terrible had a positive effect on Russia, because he really ' outlived' The Middle Ages, where each edge of the country - its own prince, and turned it into a strong Russian Kingdom with the capital in Moscow, with which England almost concluded a military alliance (which was beneficial to both countries). In this picture, the tsar was shown to be just such a person - a strong, standing on guard of the state, who wanted to break the circular bond of boyars who tear apart the country and become rich at the expense of the common people.
5. The message is correct, and has not lost its relevance until now, for as long as Russia stands, there will always be those to whom it interferes with its independence, its riches, its morals. And the enemies will be both external and internal - who are more dangerous than all, so Russia always needs to be alert and be ready for any misfortune!
So, minuses:
1. Painting of temples - I read that all such scenes were filmed in a real Orthodox church, but there is no such internal painting anywhere, so I will say this - the painting shown is rather rejection. I am a parishioner of an Orthodox church, and I also see a lot of churches in various cities of my country, but who is shown in the picture is nowhere. Or did Comrade Zhdanov insist on such a pavilion painting? Possibly.
2. Incompleteness is that the painting consists of three parts. The first part was shown in cinemas and received the Stalin Prize, the second part was shot, but rejected by the decision ' from above' but the third part exists only in the form of a small filmed scene and a bunch of working materials. So now we will never know the end of this picture, which is sad.
A bit about the main characters:
1. Ivan the Terrible performed by Nikolai Cherkasov is the first tsar of All Russia, who has a long way to transform the country, where he will be hampered by both external enemies and the boyar opposition and church figures. Nicholas created such a powerful image of the Tsar that directors and actors still inspire him. His king turned out to be strong, caring for the country and its people, but a lonely man surrounded only by devoted servants, but there is not a single friend among them! Bravo to Nikolai Cherkasov!
2. Andrei Kurbsky, played by Mikhail Nazvanov, is the commander of Russian troops in Livonia, a traitor who defected to the enemy camp. By the way, here the creators moved away from historicity about the motives of treason of Prince Kurbsky, which amused me, given the real reasons for his flight! Michael played very well!
3. Malyuta Skuratov performed by Mikhail Zharov is a dog of the sovereign, ready to fulfill any of his orders, infinitely loyal. Mikhail Zharov once again demonstrated his outstanding acting!
As a result, we have a historically reliable picture of the first Russian Tsar Ivan the Terrible directed by Eisenstein with excellent scenery, brilliant actors, the correct message and memorable image of the tsar performed by the magnificent Nikolai Cherkasov!
8 out of 10
A monumental film film filmed by a recognized genius and innovator of world cinema about the odious, flooded with rivers of blood and his tragic tyrant, filmed by order and under the careful guidance of his contemporary colleague.
The first part was received with joy by the customer and several times was released for hire, it tells about the great tsar collector of Russian lands, the great commander in military affairs glorifying Russia and terrifying its enemies - what else is needed to raise the patriotic spirit during the war. The second part was prepared for a completely different fate - it not only did not come out for hire, but was banned and most tragically affected the fate of the director. It welcomes quite another king, infinitely lonely, gradually indulged in more and more personal decay, surrounded by real and imaginary enemies, fleeing in horror former friends, fiercely avenging everything and everything - parallels with the surrounding reality are automatically drawn.
In technical terms, the picture is comparable to these mise-en-scene scenes, scenery, play with light-shadows, enchanting close-ups, in which actors convey much more by facial expressions than by replicas - all this can not cause other emotions, except admiration. Separately, it is necessary to note the brilliant play of Cherkasov, who was very clearly able to convey the metamorphosis of his hero. I want to say a lot, but it is difficult to find words, it is just necessary to watch. At a certain point of viewing, I felt sorrow and aching longing for those sufferings and tons of unjustified cruelty that fell on the shoulders of unfortunate people who lived on this earth at different times, and in my opinion, if a work can cause such emotions, then this is a sign of real art.
I think the film should be seen by everyone who is interested in genuine cinema.
9 out of 10
One of the most influential propagandists of Soviet cinema, Sergei Eisenstein, while continuing to draw his socialist realist line with hints of historicism, presents not so much to the public (it was just, at that time, not up to films at all), as to the Politburo and Comrade Stalin personally, the picture “Ivan the Terrible”.
In the history that tells about the key moments of the life of John IV, we have to draw parallels between the XVI century and the century of Sergei Mikhailovich’s contemporaries. And the point is most likely not in the personal motives of the author, but in the insistent recommendation of the Secretary General, who sought to consolidate his successes not only on the battlefields, but also on the screens of cinemas, saying, “Look, I am no worse than your bloody king.”
It is no worse, but behind the abundant “tumaks” of Bolshakov, who took control of all production and sought to finish the tape “as soon as possible”, Eisenstein’s health deteriorated considerably. This could not but affect the preamble of the narrative itself. That’s why the exterior gloss (unquestionably beautiful work of costumers and decorators) comes into conflict with the content, where the excessive dramaturgy of the entire cast (Seraphim Birman as an exception) continues to squeeze provincial-theatrical sighs-ahi from the characters. Where the rich palette of black and white and the play of light under the leadership of talented Tisse, Moskvin and Dombrovskiy opposes the dubious historical content that, in general, in the work of art is not prohibited but ... those very falls on the knees of the autocrat before the boyars, with the pleas of the "cross to kiss", look too vulgar and phantasmogoric.
Recognized by many critics and even by such a great Master as Charles Chaplin, the picture has an amazing "wrap" that hides a very confused and "compelled" legend. It is definitely worth the attention, but only in order to demonstrate how not to treat talented technicians and the appearance of contradictory personalities.
Sergei Eisenstein’s film “Ivan the Terrible” is a real masterpiece of Soviet cinema, since everything is magnificent in it: plot, acting, music, cinematography, etc.
The film seems to dip the viewer during the reign of the Grand Duke of Moscow and All Russia. We see almost the whole life of Ivan the Terrible: childhood, youth, maturity. We see his essence: he is bold, sincere, and most importantly, he truly loves Russia (an important component of the Russian ruler).
The music written by the famous Soviet composer Sergei Prokofiev is simply wonderful. It reveals the characters of the characters and conveys the atmosphere of the time.
I want to highlight an amazing acting game. Everyone in this movie has done their part well. I also want to say that Nikolai Cherkasov is the best Ivan the Terrible.
Sergey Mikhailovich Eisenstein is a genius!
I am mentally ready to be shot because I am trying to kill a shrine from Soviet cinema. Fasten your seat belts, conformist imperialists, who did not hide, I am not to blame!
The first part of the film is made under Joseph Vissarionovich, I imagine how he croaked with pleasure, looking at the cartoon ambassadors and the character of Pavel Kadochnikov in sweet makeup! The makeup gun was invented in the USSR long before Homer Simpson. The truth is that Koba claimed almost every edit to the script, with such a producer especially can not argue. That's right!
The film is just bursting with cranberries, and it is even indecent to talk about historical inconsistencies. It's all fantasy. For those interested in details, read Dobuzhinsky’s review. I especially want to note Malyuta Skuratov, which turned out like a silver lily! Hey, NKVD! And how I laughed when Efrosynia Staritskaya fell into the wards with a cry: “Kolycheva took”! Well, for sure, damn it!
The actors are cool, but why are they forced into such stilted-fake frames with pauses and bulging eyes? It is completely incomprehensible why Ivan the Terrible’s angular poses and chronic profile? Why the accent on the beard? Nostalgia for Ilyich? Maybe there's a Russian power in it, like Samson in curls? I'm confused. Old Man Hotabych and Trotsky come to mind, but let us not delve into the wilds of allusions.
The main part of the shooting takes place in some catacombs without windows, while on the walls all the time two-meter shadows, and in the frame a couple of candelabras for three candles. That's bad luck. And if Lungin got over the torture, Eisenstein played with the shadows. The expediency of distorting icons remains in question, as well as the grotesque theatrical scenery under the grass sauce, which climbs from all the crevices, like Mishkina porridge. Here someone admired extras, well, "Triumph of the will" was released back in 1935, there are extras, and here is a solid static.
The second part, she is a gypsy, mixed everything into a pile: opera, ballet, color and b / b, songs and dances, laughter and sin. I would venture to assume that Eisenstein, having realized the effect of the first part on the leader of the peoples, began to understand a little the seriousness of the problem. Therefore, the second part of the state acceptance did not pass, Stalin considered that Ivan the Terrible turned out to be humiliatingly similar to Hamlet (surprise!), and the oprichnina to the Ku Klux Klan (hello again to the NKVD and comrade Beria!).
The film is interesting, but only as an exhibit of the kunstkamera of the time of the endless Stalinism. Of course, you need to make a discount on wartime, but claim that this is a masterpiece? Fire me! As for the international recognition of those times, the interest in the film of foreigners seems to me the same as to the drunk bear on a bicycle “Eagle” with one pedal.
The third part of Eisenstein did not have time to remove. The story goes on.
' Ivan the Terrible' is a film not only about the personal drama of the autocrat, not only about the struggle for power, but rather about the power itself, about its methods, cruelty. In fact, the film had to correspond to the trend of strengthening the cult of personality. But the idea of the great director is much wider. Ivan the Terrible appears as a real madman, a demon. The screen demonstrates the gradual decomposition and destruction of the personality of the protagonist under the influence of power. It is known that Eisenstein carefully worked out the script of the film: he studied in detail the history of Russia during the period of internecine warriors, the biographies of European tyrants-autocrats and even Japanese shoguns.
Incredible in its beauty panoramic shots, long-range shots. There is no film that is empty. Each composition is filled. Remarkable is the fact that Eisenstein was set ' Forbidden' angles shooting the face of Tsar Ivan. As Ivan begins to see a boyar conspiracy everywhere, that is, in fact, paranoia begins, the hero assumes demonic traits with each scene.
Eisenstein for many years developed the theoretical foundations of cinema, this applies to editing, and sound-visual effect, and composition, individual frame, color, acting plasticity. In his film, the director focuses on the foreground. Putting the frames in a certain order, the author achieves an incredibly strong emotional impact on the viewer. Editing for him is the main means of artistic expression. With the advent of sound in the cinema, the camera becomes more static, a ' sliced', ' piecey' or ' short' editing takes on a new form and becomes less rhythmic. The rhythm is set by the sound.
Eisenstein for a long time developed various principles of synthesis of cinema and music. Eisenstein strives to combine graphic and musical art. In the creation of the film Eisenstein collaborated with S. S. Prokofiev. A truly fruitful alliance. The composer’s music was beautiful in the film. It plays a crucial role in it. The sound complements the movements of the characters of the film, thereby increasing the impact on the audience. I must say that Eisenstein easily presents information to the viewer and does not build any barriers to the viewer’s perception as, for example, A. A. Tarkovsky does. Music, large and medium plans facilitate viewing, the viewer does not need any preparation to reflect on this film.
The film belongs to the historical genre, but I do not fully agree with this. Indeed, the scenery and costumes create the atmosphere of the times of Ivan the Terrible, but the main task of the director was to evoke the viewer’s associations with the current reality, with the era of Stalin’s despotic rule. As an artist, Eisenstein constructed another reality, built all the causal relationships. The faces that we see in the Assumption Cathedral, above the entrance to the palace, are not characteristic of Orthodox iconography, they are hyperbolized. Vladimir Staritsky was not a feeble-minded fool. Consequently, the film is nadistorical. The work deals with two topics – personal and political. We see in the royal life an uninterrupted struggle with boyars, betrayal and disobedience, death, misfortune. The tsar is overcome by doubts, he rushes, and he has no support - everyone stands in opposition. But there is another interpretation – a political theme. Everything personal is expressed in the methods of government of the autocrat. Reluctance to obey awakens in him the negative aspects of character.
In the image of Ivan the Terrible (Nikolai Cherkasov), the viewer involuntarily notices something demonic. Surprisingly, if you show the viewer photos of F. I. Chaliapin acting as Mephistopheles in the opera ' Faust', it will only confirm the feeling of the viewer. At the beginning of the film we see a beautiful young king, kind but fair. As you watch the film, the features of the king become sharper and drier, he has a beard, sharp and elongated shape, and an ominous look. The main idea conveyed by the director is the following: power from anyone will make a demon.
Of course, the film requires reflection, long and painstaking. The more you analyze the work, the more you admire the genius of the director and the innovation of his techniques. You need to watch the film not 2 or 3 times to see all the beautiful nuances of the director's work.
9 out of 10
This is the kind of film, when watching which you need to forget about the story and just enjoy the director's thought. This is a film made for artistic intent, not historical authenticity.
Everything is stylish here (Eisenstein was inspired by El Greco’s paintings), everything is played. Everything is at the highest level. The directorial work is masterpiece (Eisenstein drew almost every frame, not to mention that he wrote the script himself), the cinematography is no less delightful, and what music! I want to go to the dance with the oprichniki and: “The guests entered the boyars in the yards ...” And the actors? Acting is beyond understanding. Each of them has simply merged with the hero to the impossible. These may not be real portraits of Ivan the Terrible, Anastasia, Basmanov, Kurbsky, but the portraits to the smallest worked out and very “volume”.
Of course it's an amateur movie. But if you feel the spirit, the atmosphere of the picture, then both series look in the same breath.
In itself, the release of this picture on the screens is already a phenomenal and unique manifestation of the struggle, the triumph and glorification of art over the rest of the world, not without problems. Especially at the time of the creation of this film, when, it would seem, no one cares about filming and all their efforts are aimed at one common cause - to defend their homeland at any cost.
The relevance of this film cannot be overestimated. After all, it is not for nothing that Eisenstein refers to one of the most controversial historical eras and one of the most controversial personalities. We read the temporal connection between the existing situation and the past historical period, in the very essence of each situation. And perhaps Eisenstein deliberately compares and compares seemingly different layers of time, different time periods. And such unusual “time leaders” merge together that Ivan the Terrible, that Joseph Stalin become the expression of one single greatness. And, surely, for Eisenstein not the most important is the historical transmission of the existing in the period of Ivan the Terrible reality, namely the very parallel as the root cause that connects so different in form and manners, atmosphere and spirit times. On the one hand, the Russian Empire with an absolute monarch, based on the Church, and the Absolute placing God, and the atheistic communist society of the twentieth century with the General Secretary at the head. Not without reason and approval of the authorities, who for the first part of the picture award the creators of the Stalin prize. Surprisingly, the second series of the film was banned, which also seems strange.
The conditionality and importance of the picture becomes apparent after the opening credits, which say that Ivan the Terrible, the man who managed to unite the fragmented Russian state and become the first tsar. This loud and lofty statement already initially adds and directs our eyes and corrects our opinion on certain aspects. The similarities in the moment when Grozny was removed from the boyars and surrounded by people from the people are also particularly visible, which evokes associations and direct parallels with the revolution, when the bourgeoisie was removed from power and its place was occupied by the ordinary proletarian.
It was necessary then, at that difficult time for the Soviet Union to unite and fight the enemy, with the plague of the XX century-fascism. It's hard to imagine this Eisenstein movie at another time. This film is ideologically supported by strong propaganda and initially biased and sharpened under the influence of the masses. It is not for nothing that Lenin said that of all the arts, cinema is one of the most important. Cinema, which has a special power and a special way of influence. The Soviet Union understood this very well. And, despite the fact that the picture is at the same time biographical, it does not hit the accuracy of the facts and the completeness of the life path, concentrating our attention on the individual details necessary in the historical context in which this picture exists and in which the authors need. And it seems that Eisenstein does not really care about the era itself and its spirit, which he considers. Its main goal is not to achieve a real historical picture of the time, but rather a Bolshevik view of the history of Ivan the Terrible, a Soviet interpretation within the framework of Soviet ideology. Politically right cause of Stalin and the director's company. Political agitation, initially biased and at first seems speculative and primarily not a work of art, but a statement of power structures, a way and method of influencing the consciousness of citizens. And it really is, because it is all present in the picture.
But the film’s uniqueness lies in its combination of political conditionality and artistic value. A large theatrical costume, epochal in its essence, and epic in its scope, the production of S. Eisenstein changes the essence of cinema, exalting not only the work itself, but also the whole art form. Originating as an art of "mass" cinema degenerates and evolves, to take the example of this film, into something more and elitist, extraterrestrial and transcendent. Eisenstein’s work is similar to the genre of “odes” or “proclamations”, which in the literary hierarchy have the character of a higher genre. Thanks to the music of Sergei Prokofiev becomes similar and a kind of movie symphony, from which the ears hum after watching. And in general, it seems that if you analyze cinema into all its components, it is an ideal example of art as a painting, and as a literary work, and as a clearly rhythmically constructed poetry or music.
The special attraction to theatricality of the work is now seen differently by the modern viewer. In the existing cinema – reality, films are increasingly drawn to recreate a clear picture of the world without embellishment, such as it really is. This is primarily due to the very nature of cinema, which, if you think about it, is closest to the transmission of reality. But that intimacy is conditional. And even the most realistic picture can seem unnatural and stupid, because yet the camera distorts reality and opens up the possibility of choosing in which way to create a film. Here, in the context of film history and a specific historical era, it was possible to display the necessary things only with the help of excessively theatrical play. And a more vital and mundane display of the situation, with the actors’ play close to reality, would not have the impact that theater with its high pathos and desire to rise and rise above ordinaryity, above the world, creates. After all, the image of Ivan the Terrible, perfectly executed by Nikolai Cherkasov, is not real, but as if it becomes sacred, endowed with the highest power given from a god who has no need of any adversity. His image is not objectively true and not so much significant, because it is important the very meaning and possibility of his activity and influence on the world around him. Ivan the Terrible in the film is the personification of the highest monarchical power, which cannot be resisted. Disobedience, firmness and even overcoming the highest fear – death – is seen in Eisenstein’s image of Ivan the Terrible, who, consciously or not, becomes the Stalin of the era in which the picture exists. This is what the authors needed during the creation of the picture, this is what they wanted to focus on.
It is striking that, in connection with what is happening in the world, the film has to be shot in Almaty and a formal limitation in space is immediately noticed. But Eisenstein solves this problem and creates a kind of chamber staging, a microcosm of Russian society, despite the isolation of space. Eisenstein manages to create an image of the entire state, putting the entire story in one room, beyond the framework of which the narrative is very rare. This is the case when the restriction in the means give only benefit and only have a stronger effect on the viewer.
And the last scene is like a climax, like an appeal to struggle and self-confidence. One formidable face, which is proportional in scale to the entire Russian people. As if the face of Grozny becomes the “face of the people” a reflection of its entire essence, the result of its past actions and further plans and aspirations.
At the end of the Great Patriotic War, the outstanding Russian (Soviet) director Sergei Eisenstein makes a film about the greatest Tsar Ivan the Terrible.
Sergei Eisenstein, who gave us such a masterpiece as “Battleship Potemkin”, always kept films that convey to the people the essence, which they initially perceived differently from other sources. The director’s interpretations, which he contributed to the legendary stories, were always clearly justified. Even in pre-war times, namely in 1938, the director makes a film about the great commander Alexander Nevsky. From history we remember his exploits, from literature we remember the verse “On the Battle of the Ice”, and in Eisenstein’s film we see Nevsky in all its glory, we see his character and reflection of strategists and tactics, and even more begin to admire this already great warrior. Istria cannot always be who it is. And what has come down to us from the annals and ballads may not always be absolutely true; without a doubt, glimpses of the grotesque are present in all the legends that we study history textbooks. But whatever it is, it is still a very interesting ground on which books are written, plays are staged and films are ultimately made. One of which we will be discussing.
The film, or rather the dilogy "Ivan the Terrible" is very unusual. Of these two series, we will only talk about the first. The director sets himself the task of maximally transferring the atmosphere of the 14th century to film in the 20th century. But personally, I don't quite agree that he succeeded. In my humble opinion, the film is a film of a theatrical production, perhaps this is what the great director wanted, but to be honest, I did not particularly like this style. I want to note that the actors are matchless, their work does not leave the viewer indifferent. The transformation of Nikolai Cherkasov from Alexander Nevsky to Ivan Vasilyevich was very successful. The actor managed to find the image of the king, which was originally put Eisenstein. That is, the king is not a cruel and bloodthirsty monarch, but a thinking and just one. But it is worth noting that this is still in the first stage of his reign. The plot of the first series about the great tsar about how the tsar had to endure betrayals, boyar raids, as well as the victory over Kazan.
The tsar appears before us as a patriot whose desire is to return the former possessions of Great Russia. But the very obsession with this idea of the director does not affect. I would like to discuss something else, but in this case there will be spoilers, so we will not touch. Maybe we should watch the second part to announce the verdict. As they say:" History is very doubtful" and something to present to the great master will not be quite justified.
Therefore, it is better to discuss the film itself. As far as operator work is concerned. The film is amazing. Sergei Eisenstein’s loyal collaborator-operator Eduard Tisse will forever go down in history and will be considered the greatest master of his craft. This cameraman filmed all his great creations for Eisenstein. I like the close-ups the most, they play a very big role in the film. Mimics, emotions of each hero of the picture say a lot. I also enjoyed the film, even though it was made 70 years ago. This speaks to the incredible talent and effort of a very strong operator. Editing is good, too. All 135 minutes are undeniably good. It was very difficult at the time.
And finally, I want to say that the film “Ivan the Terrible” was shot very high quality, but in the list of the best films of the 20th century in Soviet cinema, I would not bring it. As I said, the slack under the theater spoils the atmosphere. But the second part must be watched.
- From now on I will be what you call me, I will be a terrible one!
For the outstanding director of domestic and world cinema - Sergei Mikhailovich Eisenstein, the monumental historical picture "Ivan the Terrible" was the last. The idea of creating such a tape belonged to Stalin himself. It is quite obvious that the Leader admired such an ambiguous historical figure, and it is likely that he even saw himself as his modern counterpart (which in general was the case). By his order, Zhdanov and Bolshakov, who was responsible for the film industry, had to choose from among the venerable filmmakers who could be entrusted with the creation of such an important and complex artistic picture. It is quite obvious that the result of their choice fell on the author of iconic for Soviet cinema, also had international recognition of films, a living classic - Sergei Eisenstein. He after the triumphant "Alexander Nevsky" sat without work, and the proposal came from the very top, met with enthusiasm. Work on the film boiled in early 1941, before the Great Patriotic War. But the terrible troubles that befell the country in the first months of this heavy and bloody war did not cause the filming of such a complex and costly picture to be canceled. They were simply postponed for a while, until Mosfilm was evacuated to Tashkent, to Alma-Ata. Where specifically to create this tape, was soon built a giant filming pavilion. In which large-scale decorations of the magnificent walls of the cathedrals, as well as the royal chambers of the Kremlin were built. Artists made dozens of historically authentic costumes of that era: from boyar robes, to servile toulopian toulope, luxurious clothes of foreign ambassadors, to the outfits of the king himself. Just pedantic was recreated utensils of the middle of the 16th century, the interiors of the royal choir, and the houses of noble boyars. Plus the military equipment of those years, the equipment of the oprichniki and the Streltsy army ... The scope and implementation of the project are striking today, not to mention the 40s, especially in difficult for the state, wartime. After all, in fact, they worked on the film purely “for the idea”, since no one from the crew, including the artists and Sergei Eisenstein himself, earned much money on the creation of Ivan the Terrible. The work of filmmakers, like any other during the war years, was paid with food rations, food cards. It was a hungry time. Once, filming an episode of the royal feast, during which a real, good loaf stood on the table, during the break between filming, the artists began to take turns pinching from the pulp - which led to the "destruction" of food props. And to hide it, I had to put cotton under the crust of the loaf... And the construction of scenery without scarce plywood in Tashkent? Eisenstein found a way out: replacing it with mats woven from the stems, which were previously covered with plaster ... Comparing the scant opportunities of those years, and the rich of the present time - it is impossible not to be amazed at how the great filmmaker of the "old school", could shoot real masterpieces for mere pennies and without the necessary inventory!
Filming was completed in 1944, slightly behind the schedule compiled by the authorities. According to Eisenstein’s plan, the film was to be in two episodes. The first part shows the following events: the "wedding" of Grozny to the kingdom, his marriage, the proclamation of himself - the Grand Duke of Moscow - the king of all Russia, the capture of Kazan. The first film ended on a pathetic note - Ivan was able to concentrate in his hands the sole power, to unite the Russian state, hitherto divided into principalities. The picture ended with a textbook episode - a large procession of the people's procession to the Alexander Sloboda - where the tsar went into voluntary exile. The Russian people came to pray for their sovereign to return to the throne. An endless string of people, which with a black snake goes beyond the horizon, and a close-up shows the face of the king standing on the tower. Very cinematic and beautifully turned out this picture. The picture was watched in the Kremlin, and those who “ordered” it, led by Stalin, were satisfied with the work done by the filmmakers. This resolved the issue of funding the second and third series, the start of filming which, at the insistence of Eisenstein, did not delay. The script, modified during the creation of the first series, has grown in volume now to three parts. In the second, the director planned to show the worst times in Ivan’s reign: his protracted war with Livonia, for access to the Baltic Sea, the creation of the Oprichnaya army and the final defeat of the boyar opposition. The accession to the Russian kingdom of Siberia, the drama of the father and son of the Basmanovs, the royal confession and the death of Prince Kurbsky, as well as the final access to the sea, were intended for the third series. To remove which, alas, Sergei Mikhailovich was not destined ... By and large, the last work of the great Russian, if you will – the Soviet film director Eisenstein – remained unfinished.
In the autumn of 1945, the closed premiere of the second series of “Ivan the Terrible” took place, which received the subtitle “Tale of the Second: The Boyar Plot”. Stalin did not like the picture very much, as a result of which the film received devastating criticism and went to the "shelf". Eisenstein and the lead actor Nikolai Cherkasov wrote a letter to the Central Committee in which they were asked to give them the opportunity to correct the mistakes of the film. A few years later, in 1947, they were received in the Kremlin by Stalin himself, who, after listening to the arguments of the director, expressed his opinion about Oprichnina, the cruelty of Grozny and the prerequisites for this. He ended his speech by allowing filmmakers to remake the “failed” picture. But despite the official permission, work on the film barely warmed. The reason was the deteriorating health of the director, and soon Eisenstein was hospitalized with a heart attack. During the “hospital” work on the script, the master, who felt his imminent departure, was looking for, but never found someone to whom he could bequeath to finish the picture. Soon Sergei Mikhailovich suffered a blow, and he was gone. After Eisenstein’s death, work on the film rolled back. The footage did not allow the second series to be remade, and it was only released ten years later, in 1958, long after Stalin’s death. Who, seeing himself in Grozny, did not want to identify with the madness of the bloody Oprichnina his own, unleashed by him before the war, the Great Terror and the political repressions of the 30s - 40s.
It is useless to talk about acting, because even Eisenstein himself often liked to repeat that he does not remove incompetence at all. You can limit yourself only to the colossal work done by a wonderful artist of Soviet cinema - Nikolai Konstantinovich Cherkasov. He was able to play one of the most controversial and tragic statesmen who entered the history of not only his country, but also the world, not by his achievements alone, but also by cruelty, excessive suspicion and bloody reprisals against his own people. Eisenstein’s film is not a strictly historical, artistic slice of the gloomy era of our homeland.
But one must know the following: as the independent historian Murad Aji rightly put it about Ivan the Terrible: ' he was made a monster (Romanov-Jesuits in their ' history course') to frighten them Muslims'.
It is not superfluous to add to this - and fellow countrymen of other religions too, including Russians, the Romanovs and their after-Westerners tirelessly frightened and continue to frighten ' the villain-paranoid Ivan the Terrible'.
Well, Russia, according to the logic of their ' the only true pro-Western doctrine' it turns out, ' child' it' Monster' and the Russians and other fellow countrymen are miraculously surviving descendants of the frightened ' the terror of the villain tsar' ' serfs without a gene pool' For Ivan the Terrible still, according to the theses of the same pro-Western ' science of history', also ' the gene pool of the Russian people destroyed' (we must assume, not to mention the other peoples-Earthlings).
Alas, these postulates of the Jesuit crusaders, who wrote us ' scientific history', are reflected in the current official history.
Therefore, it is worth saying here that many ridiculous statements of the official ' Kazan history' (composed by Romanov ideologues-propagandaists precisely as “the standard for Russian-Tatar relations in history from the 13th to the 16th century”), stick out like a sewer out of a bag and spoil the whole intricate bloody plot.
For example, one state (' Russian') has been fighting for a couple of hundred years with another (' Tatar'), is building a fortress in the enemy's deep rear (right near his capital!) - ' a base for conquest'. And these Tatars, being ' the worst enemies of the Russians', quietly observe this construction - it is clear that not in the wilderness was built that fortress. Well, there's a lot of funny stuff out there.
And many facts from historiography, hidden from us until now, fundamentally contradict both this ' Kazan history' and in general the course of the history of the Romanovs "about the eternal enmity" of the Tatars against Russians and other peoples-Zemlyaks. And the sources, the information from which is given in confirmation of this ' primordial enmity' were ' rewritten' (or rather, written-made) from the middle of the 17th century and later, no earlier. A'the originals have not been preserved' - official historians explain to us.
I must say that many myths of the course of official history, which we inherited from the Western Romances, have already been dispelled, and it has been clarified why and who composed them.
So with 'Kazan history': as the independent historian-Turkologist Murad Adzhi quite correctly noted, "Ivan the Terrible did not take Kazan - calmly, calmly, it is so - he was too weak and helpless for this, moreover, he did not have an army!"
This statement of Murad Adzhi is fully substantiated in the books of another independent historian, G. Yenikeev: “Following the Black Legend” and “The Great Horde: Friends, Enemies and Heirs”, as well as in the book ' Heritage of the Tatars'.
Or here is the citizenship of the “Tatars conquered by Russians in the 16th century”: according to the testimony of the English ambassador D. Fletcher, ' Moscow rulers pay an annual tribute to the Tatar divey-Murzas, for which they participate on contractual terms in the wars of Muscovy in the West, and the Tatars consider those lands that lie west of their country, including Moscow' – the Englishman is talking about the late 16th – early 17th centuries, and it is about the Tatars of Muscovy, the Volga region and the Urals.
And before that, the same ' Ivan the Terrible' commanded his subordinate (Ryazan, Suzdal, etc.) princes ' to pay an exit (tribute) to the Tatar expanses, as our ancestor Ivan III bequeathed' - this is evidenced by the documents of the Moscow state that have come down to us (see more in the books ' The Great Horde: friends, enemies and heirs: the Moscow-Tatar coalition, XIV-XVI centuries.)' and ' The legacy of the Tatar historian G.
So the Westerners lost, along with the black legend “On the Tatar invasion and yoke” 39, the main myth of official history, composed to oppose the Tatars to the countrymen, and which portrayed the Tatars as “enemies of the peaceful peoples of Russia, almost completely destroyed by the troops of the Russian Tsar Ivan the Terrible”. After ' Kazan History' (' Kazan Chronicler'), and everything that was composed in the XVIII-XVIII centuries. in its continuation is a political myth, composed and ' promoted ' Romanov (pro-Western) historians-ideologists, priests and mullahs to legitimize their power and ' moral suppression' and opposition to each other Ordyns (among which were representatives of not only Tatars, but also Russians and other Lands), the great Tatars resisting their colonization.
Detailed, reasoned and logically justified about everything said above, and not only about this, but also about many things that are hidden from us by official Western historians, is set forth in the books of G. R. Enikeev, named above. Chapters from the books of G. Enikeev, covers and tables of contents, as well as reviews on them can be found on the website 'Tatars of Eurasia (true history)'. There are also articles by G. Enikeev and his speeches at scientific and practical conferences.
The site is easy to find in the Internet by name, typing it in the search window.
The first part of Eisenstein’s film takes place between 1547 and 1564. Naturally, in such a period of time there were many events that are very difficult to fit in an hour and a half, but the creators of Ivan the Terrible tried to do it. No wonder it didn’t work out the best way. First, there's a lot left behind. So in the film almost completely absent such significant figures of the time as the confessor of the king pop Sylvester, Alexey Adashev and Metropolitan Makariy. Secondly, there are many chronological inconsistencies with real events. For example, according to the plot of this film, it turns out that Queen Anastasia Romanovna died in 1564, immediately after the escape of Kubsky to Lithuania. In fact, the first wife of Ivan the Terrible died four years earlier, in the year 1560.
In addition, the film was not supposed to be present Malyut Skuratov. This comrade became the "eye of the sovereign" only in the second half of the 1560s. By the way, Malyuta for some reason was made by birth a simple man, although he actually came from a noble family. Similarly, Alexei and Fyodor Basmanov were “downgraded”. In reality, they were both representatives of the noble boyar family, while in the film these oprichniki turned into ordinary nobles.
But the movie, despite all the mistakes, is not bad. It's worth a look.
Guests drove to the boyars in the courtyards ... walked along the boyars of the axes ...
Having recently reread Prince of Silver, I became interested in Ivan the Terrible, or rather, his image in art. Ambiguous personality, a huge field for interpretations and rethinkings. With some hesitation I took up Eisenstein’s film, a famous color excerpt from which I had already seen. How great this moment, however, can only be appreciated by watching the whole film.
There's a lot of weird stuff in the movie.
The most noticeable strangeness is the approach to acting. Attitude to the beauty of each frame, and not on the psychology of images, and certainly not on the reliability of behavior. All these sweeping gestures (spreading the hands and the like with them), emphasized facial expressions (Ivan, for example, oddly gazes his eyes), picture postures (so, twisting, throw the staff, or pictorially fall to the bed of his wife). It doesn’t look as wild as it did in 1921’s Metropolis, but it sometimes elicits a chuckle at a decidedly inopportune moment. The reasons for this approach can be argued, but even with some of my tolerance for emphasized theatricality in the cinema, it interferes.
And after all, there are rare moments where the experiences of heroes begin to believe. Perhaps this is Grozny’s conversation with Malyuta about Kurbsky: the “red dog” of the tsar very skillfully plays on his feelings, intriguing against his old friends: you, they say, yearn for his friendship, and not for treason are angry – and, apparently, Ivan reacted very expectedly to the point. And some more moments with Euphrosyne (her first lullaby to her son and the final).
Then there's a weird approach to splicing episodes. No sooner had one period of the king’s life ended than another. For example, a rebellion, and the tsar of such people: “Let’s better go to Kazan!” – and everyone was like: “To Kazan!” – and ran to Kazan, at the same moment. It turned out, again, rather funny. And above the coffin of the beloved instantly “turn on” the statesman’s husband and immediately enter the oprichnina – this is all the more strange. Judging by sources, the real Ivan at that time clearly was not up to politics: shock, hysteria, grief, and only then, having come to his senses. But we indicated, very symbolically, the reasons and approach of the “new people” in the face of the Basmanovs, and the “upgrade” of hatred of the boyars.
Well, the state order: for example, in the first series, the “anti-German” statements are clearly intended to cause the viewer the feeling “then we beat the Germans, then we will prevail now” (film of 1944).
Of course, it was not without protractedness, thoroughness, for serious films it is somehow necessary, a systemic property. But, although I was frightened by this protractedness, it did not go beyond, this is not “Stalker”, where it is clearly too much.
Now for the interesting moments. Stunning costumes, scenery, mask organization. After watching the color episode of the oprichniki dance, you regret that not the whole film is colored - such a luxury. But in black and white format is a beautiful game of light shade. In general, the design is above praise.
Lots of handsome people. Ivan himself in his youth (surprisingly, the actor plays him and in maturity - excellent makeup), Kurbsky, Basmanov Jr. It is worse with beauties: although Queen Anastasia is supposed to be very beautiful, here, under layered clothes, you can not understand. And Efrosinya is just scary, at first I even thought she was played by a man. But what character is outlined: a cruel, cunning, of great will and even greater ambition woman! From a quite ordinary historical prototype made in fact the main antagonist Ivan.
Basmanov’s song is energy, and most importantly, appropriateness: the culmination of the struggle between the boyars and the tsar, the moment when the masks will be removed, the anticipation of victory – not a fair fight, but a dirty game. Wild carnival revelry, and beneath it - a sober tense wait for the endgame. The musical theme of this song is preserved until the finale: "Goy-yes, goy-yes, say... say..."
Another interesting question: what is the film about? Like in a school essay, "What did the author mean to say?" Apparently, his questions were very global, the fate of Russia, no less – and personally, I would prefer the tragedy of the individual. But then we have to remember again about the time: then the question of the fate of our country was very acute and personal for everyone, it is now, tofu-fu, it is perceived more abstractly. And if you think about the government...
If Metropolis, already mentioned by me, has now become just a cultural phenomenon, then Ivan the Terrible is still perceived as a “normal” film, however, I still had much more research interest when watching it. I cannot say that I was completely satisfied with this image of Ivan, but as an option he is curious.
Well, the classics have seen, what are other films about Grozny? .