La congiura dei boiardi

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.

While the first part of "Ivan the Terrible" is unique, stylized and powerful historical chronicle, second part is something more: poignant tragedy of authority. Since boyars poisoned Ivan's wife and his friends betrayed him, tsar remains in lonely. Oprichniki are only people he can trust. Ivan orders to kill some of boyars for instance, then Efrosinia Staricka (his aunt) sets plot against his life. One word gives atmosphere of this film: paranoia. Every character cares burden of fear - about his life, about his political business. Pervasive fear is delivered to us with unearthly dance of shadows, dramatic Prokofiev's score, haunting acting, poetic dialogs, monumental decorations and costumes. Everything looks very artificial but, paradoxically, not false; this film works with peerless emotional strength and brings as much true about authority as Shespeare's best works, being compatible to Maciavlelian theory of authority. There are only few films in history of cinema that so heavily consider problems of power (I'd mention "The Godfather, Part II" and Kurosawa's "Kagemusha" and "Ran" beside "Boyars Plot"). Don't miss. And if you decide to watch this film, I recommend: take great Criterion DVD box set which contains also first part and "Alexander Nevsky", another Eisenstein's sound masterpiece.

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.

There is not a single criticism I could make for either Ivan the Terrible Film. They are perfect films, original, effective, and affecting. Perhaps the two best films ever made. If not, they're to be included on my list of totally invaluable films, with not a doubt in my mind.

II begins exactly where I ends. Ivan has consolidated his power in Moscow, at least with the people (though not with the nobles, or "boyars"). In fact, what power he has inspires jealousy and fear in the boyars.

Ivan I builds Ivan up as a noble character. We despise the boyars for their flagrant wealth and greed, and we like Ivan for supporting the people. His closest comrades seem like Homeric heroes.

Ivan II develops Ivan's character even further. He may have power, but he still feels alone on the throne. His two greatest friends have left him, one gone to religion and one to the enemy. His immediate underlings, perceived as heroes in Ivan I, have grown paranoid and powerful. They convince Ivan to execute left and right. The only route for the boyars is to conspire Ivan's death.

Ivan II leads up to one of the single greatest climax I can think of. To heighten the effect, for the first time, Eisenstein opted to shoot in color. And as masterful as he was with black and white, he is also with color. The juxtaposition of color with black and white is absolutely amazing.

The only problem with the film is no one's fault. Part II ends, open for the third installment. Alas, Sergei Eisenstein would die before its completion. We're lucky enough to have Ivan the Terrible Part II, for Stalin demanded that it not be released theatrically, believing Ivan to be a portrait of himself. Eisenstein, in fact, never had the chance to see it released theatrically, was never to hear the lavish praise from critics the world round. Here I praise it, hoping that in the next world possibly Eisenstein can know what masterworks he made.

This space can't afford me the kind of gargantuan platform needed to speak on Eisenstein's masterwork (both parts) with the sort of attention to detail and passion that the director brings to the story of the Russian tsar. This is the rarest of films that stands as a testament to how cinema can extend beyond an entertainment and exist as a singular work of art and a document that works to expand our knowledge of the human condition. Every frame is rich, every scene speaks far more than any written line or action. The production is a phenomenal achievement in the absolute totality of the collaborative effort; the actors, the set, the cinematography, the soundtrack - every facet of the film-making process has worked to create a seamless connection. While the approach of the actors, the lighting and the choices of camera angles frustrate our standard ideas of what a movie should look and feel like, there is a design here; it is precise and it is brilliant. This is a film for those viewers who, as Eisenstein famously said, read (not just watched) the images on the screen. One of the two or three true masterworks in the history of movies.