Tsar

The famous Russian producer Pavel Loungin paints a grim - though realistic - picture of the brutal rule of Ivan the Terrible, the first self-proclaimed Tsar of Russia. The depth and sophistication of the movie are obvious to everyone familiar with Russia's bitter history (and, sadly,) present. It is not so difficult to identify the contemporary realities of Russia (autocracy, iron fist ideology, contempt and perversion of justice) with what you see in Moscovy of 1570s. On top of that, the critical parts in the movie are played by the outstanding actors Oleg Yankovsky (metropolital Philip Kolychev) - one can only wonder how a 21 century actor can portray a saint and Peter Mamonov - a chilling representation of the maniacal Tsar Ivan, who does not give you a minute of rest throughout the movie. The movie is surely a landmark in filming history. The current mediocre rating is surprising to me and is apparently based on the votes of Russian iron fist sympathizers.

An impressive work, for someone acquainted with Russian culture and history. The acting is superb and the reality imposed by a bloody Russian King is overwhelming; as well his evil deeds were unfolded in the movie respecting all the historical facts. Its really marvelous to encounter in the movie the Christian orthodox struggle with the absolute power of the King and his outlawed deeds. If u really want to see what church meant in Russian past you are really invited to watch the movie, I can assure you it will shock your mind. I watched it and I have seen what a twisted mind with absolute power can do to humanity. By any means it is truly a masterpiece, definitely a must see.

We all know Ivan the Terrible was a mad tyrant, and many know that Philip was a Saint. The film shows little more, and little depth to Ivan, and none to any other character beyond Philip. Why does Ivan act the way he does? Is it just madness? Or is it related as some say to the death of his wife? Or to religious extremism? The film doesn't say. Why do the lesser characters behave the way they do? The film doesn't hint at any explanation. Why is such a mad tyrant able to rule? The film doesn't say (hint: he actually accomplished a lot in the earlier part of his rule). The film implies all the churchmen were saints, when in fact many (understandably) collaborated with Ivan. It is beautifully filmed, and well acted, but ultimately shallow.

I saw that this film had won the Nike award (Russian equivalent of Oscar), so took advantage of a showing on the Russian channel on DirectTV (unsubtitled). I checked out the "Hollywood Reporter's" review of the showing in Cannes, and the first line of that review corresponds to the first comment I would post myself, relating it to Tarkovsky's "Andrei Rublev"(1967) and Eisenstein's "Ivan the Terrible." (1944)

While the title of the film is "Tsar," the personality of the Metropolitan Fillip, played by Oleg Yankovsky, really dominates. Ivan is viewed through Andrei's eyes, and is judged by his values. Like Tarkovsky's "Rublev" Fillip attempts to find spiritual meaning in the harshness of his times, and Ivan at first come across as an object of pity to whom the church father attempts to give spiritual guidance. The film presents of trinity of "Holy Fools" (Iurodyvye), who traditionally speak prophetic truth to power - in the persons of Fillip, the little girl, an the jester (whose revelations of Ivan's cruelty are for the film-viewers alone). Ivan tells Fillip to speak the truth to him, but becomes progressively more opposed to the holy truth and therefore more and more "terrible."

Stalin found confirmation for the "great man" approach to history in Eisenstein's earlier historical epics, but Eisenstein's "Ivan the Terrible,Part II" was banned when the historical necessity argument gave way to grotesque depiction of the oprichniki and the murder of a young pretender to the throne. Lungin's gritty realism is the director's means of unmasking the tsar's barbarity. The magnificence of the regal costuming and sets do not startle the viewer with pageantry, but rather offer a grotesque contrast between the mask of wealth on display in the presence of masses violently spilled blood.

What may appear as "straightforward storytelling" is in many ways a polemic with historical narratives of the past. Ivan is most terrible in the power that he wields through insanity and belief in his role as God's appointed servant.

more than a film. it is a form of visual essay about power and religion, about solitude and about the roots, laws and vision of tyranny. it is a fight against Russia's history. a parable. portrait not of Ivan Vasilievich but for a manner, an usual manner of East to use the authority with high force and profound fear. Pyotr Mamonov gives a strange, cold, unpredictable, vulnerable Ivan. a Tsar looking for himself, lost in good intentions and noble projects. but, maybe, the hero is Philip. the voice of Church and good sense. the voice of conscience in a dark circle of confusion. the Metropolit is a splendid role. the last for great Oleg Ynkovsky and that status impose a special status to it. more than a film. maybe, useful subject for reflection. about power. in our time. in each period of history.