伊凡雷帝

评分：

6.0 还行

原名：Иван Грозный又名：雷帝伊凡 / Ivan the Terrible, Part One / 伊万雷帝

分类：传记 / 历史 / 地区：苏联年份：1944

简介：伊凡四世是16世纪最具禀赋的俄罗斯大公。影片以伊凡17岁时的加冕典礼这一宏大场面

查看详情

更新时间:2021-05-04

伊凡雷帝影评：[Film Review] Ivan the Terrible, Part I (1944) and Part II (1958)

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).