Iwan, der Schreckliche II

It's great art.Eisenstein can be compared to Michelangelo,no less.Needless to say,you've got to see part one -slightly inferior to this one,but what does it mean,when you' re watching the seventh art at the height of its terrible powers?-.This part focuses on the feud between Ivan and his aunt who tries to replace him by an effeminate imposter of her choice.Prokofiev music gives the feeling of watching an opera,the scenes in the cathedral recreate a mystery as it was in the Middle Ages as faithfully as you can wish.The peak of the movie remains the banquet,shot in color,thanks to spoils of war film.So stunning is Eisenstein's mastery of the picture that you can hardly exactly tell when the color returns to black and white (which for the final becomes a color in itself)Ivan's last soliloquy might seem aggressive and chauvinistic.But you've got to remember that the USSR were at war at the time ."Ivan" is timeless ,a monument that's as awesome today as it was for its -deleted,because of Stalin- 1958 release.

Ivan the Terrible Part II, the culmination of Eisenstein's career, is easily one of the most brilliant films of all time.

Nothing - repeat absolutely nothing - in this film is sub-par. The acting, especially the inhuman physical contortions of Nikolai Cherkasov as the Tsar himself, is uniformly excellent. As is to be expected from Eisenstein, the direction is perfect. Eisenstein's compositions create painterly tableaux that can be watched endlessly on pause (especially now that Criterion has issued both Ivans on DVD), allowing the audience to take in the full breadth of this man's genius. Additionally, unlike, for example, Alexander Nevsky or Strike, Ivan the Terrible Part II (and part I) benefits from a smoother pace and better editing, putting Eisenstein's theory of montage to its best use since Potemkin.

For me, however, what two key components of this film set it apart from its prequel and Eisenstein's earlier Potemkin and October.

Those components, as you can imagine, are its more pronounce political allegory and its color sequence towards the end.

Certainly October and Potemkin were highly politicized affairs, both celebrating the Communist victory in Russia. In Ivan the Terrible Part II (and to a lesser extent Part I), the audience bears witness to a moment of challenge wherein Eisenstein becomes critical of the course his country and its post-Lenin leaders have taken. As such, Ivan the Terrible becomes one of the bravest moments in film history and, for that alone, should be commended.

Brilliant as a political critique, the film also represents a dazzling demonstration of how color could be used in cinema. The colorized dance at the end of the film rivals and prefigures the technicolor explosion in Douglas Sirk's 1950s melodramas; furthermore, it reveals that color can be used to achieve specific effects. It does not have to mimic reality; rather it can be used artistically to enhance the mood and atmosphere of the film.

Taken as a whole, the two-part Ivan the Terrible is a masterpiece of Russian Cinema and should be required viewing for anyone with the slightest bit of interest in film. My preference lies with the second part, but both are fantastic moments in film history.

Ivan the Terrible marks the final stages of the cinema's greatest creative genius: SERGI EISENSTEIN. It is the work of a director, a supreme artist who never ceased in probing new boundires, striking out uncharted paths, and searching the outer limits of his art. In the work, Eisenstein has gone eons beyond his earlier methods of film creation and for the first time approaches a true synthesis of dance, music, poetry, painting, photography, architecture, and all other forms of aesthetic communication.

The trials and tribulations surrounding the production and distribution of Ivan have become legendary in there own right. The film drew sharp criticism from Stalin and Eisenstein was forced to publicly announce his ''formalist errors.'' Subsequently, the film was banned in Russia until 1958 and Eisenstein was ostracized for what many saw as a film full of ''excess.'' It took many years before the world would come to realize it is nothing short of his greatest masterpiece.

A true cinematic realization of the ever elusive ''total work of art.'' A concept that originated with the Ancient Greeks and was further formulated by Richard Wagner in his epic masterwork, ''THE RING CYCLE.'' The Gestanmueack or ''intragel work of art'' as Wagner called it was in essence the synthesizing of every artistic medium into a single polyphonic experience. In the 20th century Eisenstein saw Wagner's music dramas as predecessors of cinema; a cinema that synthesized elements of all of mankind's arts into a single majestic, visceral and emotional experience which could transform and transfix the spectator. Together with the world renowned composer, master Sergei Prokofiev, and his lifelong cinematographer Eduard Tisse, Eisenstein labored for years researching and planning out every camera angle, lighting scheme, musical note, costume, color palette, gesture, and perspective; until every scene in Ivan becomes an intricate and complex world of its own. A world where actors twist and bend their forms to the limits of the plastic frame, shadows conceal and light reveals, the musical notes flow with the rhythm and tempo of the visual image and in the famous banquet scene, colors are used by Eisenstein to delve into the psychological states of the character's mind and state of being. It becomes a universe composed so precisely and diligently that every frame is infused with hidden metaphorical and symbolic meanings, and serves to create the epitome of cinematic achievement.

Tragically, like Schubert's great ''Unfinished Symphony'' or the Venus di Milo, Eisenstein passed away before completing the final part of his epic masterwork. What remains of Ivan the Terrible will live forever as a testament not only to the genius of Sergei Eisenstein but also to his unparalleled contribution to the world culture of the 20th century.

Like the first part of the movie "Boyarsky Zagovor" (Conspiracy of the Boyars)is indeed a film about Stalin (who was a great admirer of Ivan the IV.) and the (seem-to-be)mechanics of power itself. The ideology, which is acted out (or reflected?!) stays much the same: one people/one leader is the ideal and necessary state of the (russian) nation, enabling it to take up with the other nations ("the Germans")The terror on the boyars and the elimination of some of them reflects Stalin's paranoiac action on comrades, subaltern party-members with the help of the "oprichniki" (here: Beriya and consorts). For instance, once in the movie, Ivan makes 'one of his best friends' the metropolit of Moscow, but in the same sequence is persuaded by the oprichniki's leader to kill his relevant to make him scared of Ivan's power. Because of this illustration of paranoiac stalinist mechanism, I can't agree on the popular notion, that the second movie is not as good as the first. One more reason: the most startling child actor ever: Erik Pyryev as the young tsar, ordering the chief boyar to be lashed.

This second part of Eisenstein's history of the reign of "Ivan the Terrible" is an excellent portrayal of the complex machinations between the famous tsar and his determined rivals, the boyars. The story, the settings, the actors, and the characters surpass even the high standards of Part One. Nikolai Cherkasov is again excellent in his portrayal of Ivan, with even his occasional exaggerations fitting nicely into his memorable characterization of the formidable tsar. Serafima Birman is again quite effective as Ivan's aunt and most bitter rival. As Vladimir, Pavel Kadochnikov gets much more to do than he did in Part One, and he makes good use of his scenes. The character of Vladimir - foolish and timid, but with ambition in his heart - is important to the way that events play out.

The story in Part Two picks up at a low point for Ivan, finding him with few friends and many problems. As the boyars begin to plot, there is less outward action than there was in Part One, but the drama is even tauter and the stakes even higher. The picture is also rounded out by the flashbacks to Ivan's youth, which give an even more complete picture of this complex ruler. (The English nickname 'terrible' does not really convey the full sense of his actual nickname in Russian.)

The early scenes lead up to the lengthy sequence of the banquet and its aftermath, which a masterpiece of psychological drama and effective film-making. The cat-and-mouse game between Ivan and his enemies is complemented by the color, imagery, and other details, and it all leads up to a climax filled with tension and possibilities.

Eisenstein's series on Ivan showcases the great Russian director's distinctive technique, and it is certainly one of the finest of all historically-based movies. With memorable characters, interesting stories, and lots of creativity, both movies are well worth multiple viewings - and this second part is even better than the first.