Ivan the Terrible, Part I

hema4.5

A Tsar Is Born

Neil Bahadur5.0

I haven't too much to add since I last visited the film, but what strikes me now is the films total and tonal rhythmic harmony, something heightened by the films high visual stylism which Eisenstein hadn't attempted before. This is no secret, but it goes well beyond merely mis-en-scene and composition (and the beautifully fluid manner of cutting) but into performance, so much so that the film can seem animated. This "animation" of performance allows for a mode that, which jarring at first, consumes the viewer into the film, while eliding both emotional affect and even emotional depth in favour of psychological truth. Such a position can understandably be not cathartic enough for some, but given that it focuses almost entirely on political intrigues, it becomes genuinely illuminating. Perhaps ironic given that he made sound films as well as Eisenstein's own three, it perfectly illustrates the dictum Kubrick learnt from Eisenstein's silent pictures - that composition, position, lighting and a cut can be more effective on a viewer's subjectivity than any performance could, while pushing that to a level that I'm unsure has been matched before or since. Eisenstein in this late period, alongside Kubrick, Welles, and Chaplin all aimed for a certain musicality of cinema whereupon tempo, rhythm and structure shared as much importance as what appeared on the screen. If this is true, than Ivan Part I (and possibly Nevsky, though I'd have to revisit) are the real beginnings of a true, baroque cinema.

Neil Bahadur5.0

First time seeing the restored version - far more subversive (or rather, two faced?) than I had initially realized, perhaps because the previously available version had been in such low quality OR because I had become so entrenched with the 2nd part, which pushes far deeper into the dark side. Much less Stalinist propaganda in comparison to Nevsky and its more obviously a part of a grander whole, with far more foreshadowing and ambivalence than I had realized. But more importantly, rather than the Wagnerian simplicity of Nevsky we really get to see Eisenstein rethinking montage through sound cinema in this one, overloading on symbolism and baroque austerity, where lines being read seem to play as juxtapository towards the composition, or even the poses or movement of a character. But furthermore every thrust towards Wagnerian awe comes with it's own dark side, even if just for a moment. What's initially striking about Part I is how Eisenstein attempts to use a melodramatic model as a manner to explicate how this political system works - here by setting up each characterization and character role delineation immediately (in the opening scene!) so that each intrigue and twist, betrayal etc, has emotional function even though what we are seeing is for the purpose of elaborating upon how this system works. But there is more here (and this is elaborated on in Eisenstein's own texts) - this isn't merely a formal experiment, this is done because ultimately, no matter how hard you try, you cannot attempt to show systematic procedure with distance. The systematic is created by humans; and the keyword within power structure is "power." And whenever power is concerned, you cannot escape psychology.Part I lacks the focus and chamber-drama thrust of Part II, but makes up for it by covering a much vaster expanse - covering decades where the follow-up appears to cover a week at most. "Operatic" would be the world yet it's far too cinematic - Eisenstein is developing his own formal ideas as mentioned earlier, even incorporating German expressionistic techniques that he had rejected in his prior films. How this comes into play is fascinating, where everything - the lighting, the music - works in juxtaposition with the narrative drive. Rather than including these expressionistic techniques into compositions with the characters (as we would so often see in Murnau, Welles, Ford or so much of Classical Hollywood) Eisenstein often separates them into different shots - so we have one perspective where we see the narrative drive followed by a flip-side, giving us both the immediate, Wagnerian perspective followed by it's literal "shadow," calling to mind darker and more heinous implications. This too is heard in the score - at times triumphant as the films narrative drive often is, but as the film progresses, the score becomes progressively melancholy and terrifying, at times catching you off guard as though to remind you of the double-sided face of the dictator.Reasons like this make it pretty clear that this is a work of art on its own terms, far from the more directly propagandistic dialogues of Nevsky or Potemkin. Still the film does ultimately accept it's nationalist overtones (though which are undone by its second chapter) but even this is formally stunning, where Ivan in the foreground and the masses in the background are composed as though to suggest a fluidity between masses and leader. But it does have enough traits on its own - we don't necessarily need a second or third part to see this film is about the progression of the idealist to the despot - though the second takes it much farther and how I wish the third was completed. Still there are thrilling thematic moments - the anti-religion standpoints continue from October and Behzin Meadow, where state & religion protect each other, are disconnected from masses and how that latter is used by the former to have ideological hold over the uneducated masses. This boils into one of the films most thrilling sequences - where the priest admonishing death rites over Tsarina Anastasia is suddenly confronted by an Ivan that seems to explode...yet even as these rites are admonished members of Ivan's private military slowly enter the room to bring news of treachery and betrayal, as tradition holds no sway over truth. Ivan's pushing over a pillar becomes a reaction against what here is the ultimate distortion of reality. Such a great communist Eisenstein was!There's so much more and this is such a challenging film to write about, not because the film is challenging (Eisenstein knew the necessity of accessibility) but because it seems utterly inexhaustible with ideas, and watching this film is watching the mediums greatest master firing on every cylinder - not in a way that broaches accessibility like October - but in a way that can be understood by everyone without compromise. Cinema - the medium of the proletariat.