Tsar

Film 'Tsar' made some social resonance in Russia,- dividing people who do not accept film because of huge mortality and deaths in film(it's true - 'Tsar' is dark and cruel) and those who see the human Drama in face of Tsar Ivan, drama of the governor - is really not the best in Lungin's biography,though the best in my.

I had opportunity to take participation in this film, i was acting eye- blinded Serafim and should say that the plot of this film is really great. and Im thanking life and faith to let me do my job as good as i could))))

Also i've got lots of new friends,- among them Tom Stern -

the cinematographer of 'Tsar'.- really good American,- i took a look on his projects with Clint Eastwood, and opened this to brave Americans for myself.

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.

"Nothing destroys authority more than the unequal and untimely interchange of power stretched too far and relaxed too much" (Francis Bacon Sr).

Pavel Lungin's film, promoted at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival, absorbingly develops some aspects of the reign of tsar Ivan called the terrible which spanned a considerable period of time in the 16th century Russia. Unlike the famous Siergiei Eisenstein 'trilogy' that drew parallels to its difficult period of time it was made in, and, consequently, did not see its full realization, Lungin's production, as an attempt to bring this hard time to screen, does not much echo its masterful predecessor. It rather occurs to create an image of a ruler who himself stretches his power too far and destroys his authority. Yet, a viewer might be led to wrong assumptions through the title: it is not solely a film that should be called 'a tsar' but rather 'a ruler and his voice of conscience.'

The director manages to develop the figure of the ruler (powerfully played by Pyotr Mamonov) and his 'prophet' the voice that helps him turn to God, that is Philip Kolychev (played by Oleg Yankovskiy). Philip, for some time a metropolitan, reveals to us the true face of the ruler who is power obsessed and a man rather weak innerly but very much disguised as a powerful tyrant. Metropolitan Philip is a man of God who confronts the never ending conflict: church and state. By wooing the ruler, he deceives his conscience, by telling the truth, he places himself in fatal dangers. Yankovskiy does an excellent job in the role making the character deeply religious, powerfully touching and uniquely convincing. He is a sort of combination of Thomas Becket/Thomas Moore/biblical prophet Samuel who reprimands the ruler and pays a high price. This relation between the tsar and his metropolitan seems to evoke above anything else, seems to be a key drama of the entire story.

Divided into four parts, THE PRAYER OF THE TSAR, THE TSAR AT WAR, THE TSAR'S WRATH, THE TSAR'S FUN, the movie sometimes seems to skip continuity. The dramatic resonance of the story is intensified by the period the action is set (the 1560s), the Oprichnina and Livonian War, a particularly cruel time that marks the Russian history with notorious cruelty. In the part TSAR'S FUN, we see the tools of torture, we get the pseudo-pagan games with a bear that kills a man in an 'arena' and, being the most disturbing, an innocent girl with the icon of Madonna. While Eisenstein's movie sometimes seemed to glorify the courage and power of Ivan (especially in the first part accepted so powerfully by Stalin), this movie marks the clear contrast between the cruel ruler and men of God.

But the movie's flaw lies in the fact that it does not really build upon some psychological image of a man, some sophisticated depiction but rather divides the characters into the good and the bad ones. Except for the Oprichnina who are, naturally, all bad, the pinnacle of that approach is Maria Temryukovna, Ivan's second wife (not depicted by Eisenstein), the tsar's evil genius and seen as a 'whore of Babylon' having fun at the cruelty.

TSAR is a film worth seeing as a slightly different approach, perhaps most, however, because of excellent performances. Clearly, the cast did all their best within the frame of their possibilities. And the emotional crescendo of the finale touched by lonesome tragedy offers every viewer a moment of profound thought deprived of any commercialism.

Highly worth seeing!

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.