MUBI

After the death of his wife and the betrayal of his faithful comrade Koerbski, the bitter Ivan has only one goal left, to make a strong Russia without influences from foreign countries. In the meantime the rich Russian families (Boyarsky) are creating a complot to murder Ivan. Efrosinia wants her son (Ivan’s mentally retarted nephew) to become the czar of Russia.

Ivan Groznyy II is perhaps symbolic and visual a bit less than the first part, but even more interesting when it comes to the story and the portrait of Ivan. This film is more focused on the person Ivan and not so much on the battles or events outside. Serafima Birman (Efrosinia) is one of the most expressive actresses I know, scenes in which she’s in are unforgettable.

The first part of Ivan Groznyy was made with the approval of Stalin, this part however was forbidden. In Ivan Groznyy II, Eisenstein shows us the depths of Ivan’s personality, the questions he asks himself (‘Who am I to judge and execute people’). Josef Stalin perhaps recognized himself in this portrait and therefore this film was forbidden until 1958. Sergei M. Eisenstein died in 1948 and this film came out 10 years after his death and 5 years after the death of Stalin.

There is a case for film theatrics I think.

While silent films are guilty of antiquity; bulging eyes, bodies always facing the camera and dancing jazz hands, you cannot help but be amused and almost drawn into these strange little worlds. The naive quality of the sets, pasty faces and eyeliner, the cardboard-almost realist backdrops. What would happen I think, if these elements were transmuted to a new land. Not like German Expressionism, but an aural, visual symphony of quaint-modernity (for lack of a better word.)

Enter Ivan the Terrible. Sergei Eisenstein’s final films (there are two parts) ostensibly about the rise to power of the first Czar Ivan whose goal to unite Russia resulted in bloodshed and death. At least, not in Stalin’s eyes, as was his intention for commisioning the famous filmmaker to set sail on this project.

But a new beast was created. Eisenstein remarked that he disliked the overt theatrics of THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI, yet his two films seem to be in the complete land of artifice, where every object has been positioned in such deliberate, impossible spots, where the lights create strange shadows and icons and symbols are transposed to every scene, coloring the film with new meaning each time.

Is it propoganda? or highly subversive fantasy? Most agree that the depiction of 16th century Russia and Europe resides firmly in some sort of gothic-horror fever dream concocted by Eisenstein. Looking at his endless sketches and notes, one could make a case that this was the reason for the apparent strangeness that permeates the film.

The plot is quite straightfoward, at first. Ivan the duke procalims himself Czar of Russia. This does not bode well for the boyars, led by the over-the-top evil aunt Efrisonia, who wishes to place her half-wit son Vladimir in place of Ivan, so as to consolidate the power of the Boyars and thus continue a reign of despots and corrupt officials. At least, that’s how Stalin wanted it to be portrayed. However, it becomes readily apparent that Eisenstein has bigger fish to fry. For one thing, the ‘characters’ are not symbols, as opposed to his earlier work, where editing and camera movement was designed to mark the bodies of actors and faces into broad imagistic avatars for ideas.
In Ivan the Terrible, there are full-blooded characters that develop, often unpredictably and in the most irrational evil way possible. And that is the markedly distinct feature of these biopics. Ivan is neither savior nor villain. he is an ambivalent and contradictory figure that is both un-likeable, mad, and strangely passionate about mother Russia. His followers are equally slimy and also degenerate into despotic behavior that makes the Boyars seem downright benign. indeed, by the end of part two, it becomes clear that Eisenstein has pulled a fast one on us, as he has us feel pity for Efrisonia, who is tricked by Ivan and all her ambitions for her son, destroyed.
Ivan’s best “friend” also turns corrupt, though it is shown to be an almost instinctive action that Kurbsky has an impossible time resisting.
As all the conventions break down and the film becomes increasingly surreal, so do the appearances of the characters and the set design. Paintings take on demonic connotations that are both ambigious and frighteningly clear. Ivan gets a Jafar-stache that accenuates his vulture like qualities. His right-hand man Malyuta, starts looking like an immense dog, his hear curling over his ears and covering one eye, thus fullfilling his duty as eye of the Czar. And Fyodor, head of the Oprichniki, while initially looking young and handsome, starts looking like a slinky devil, eventually cross-dressing at part two’s color climax musical sequence that doesn’t feel at all out of the blue or crazy.
In fact, it is a logical and satisfying conclusion that even Stalin himself was repulsed by. Part was banned and Eisenstein was brought before the man himself for ‘suggestions’ that if not followed would certainly result in..harsh results. But nevertheless, Ivan the Terrible has a highly stylized look and one can trace the influences to dozens of films and directors, from Fellini, to Kurosawa, to George Lucas, to Scorsese, to Tim Burton, To Francis Ford Coppola, to lots of others and such.
It’s quite startling to watch and somewhat unsettling. Paranoia is prevelant and you might believe that every action your friends do conceals esoteric, possibily malevolent intentions.