After a long time of waiting I finally could lay my hands upon the well talked about "Ivan Groznyj". Having seen other known Eisenstein masterpieces prior to this, my expectations were, to say the least, very high. Did "Ivan..." match these expectations?
Yes, it did. But not just matched them. It actually surpassed these and with its magnificent elegance, fearfulness and malevolent imagery, it outshone any contenders in the field of scenography and images. Kubrick and Bergman almost falls as easy and simple in comparison to this marvelous masterpiece.
Some can claim "Ivan..." to be a over pretentious work, falling by its own weight and volume and that the deliberate overacting by Cherkasov (among others) only helps the fall. Personally I can not agree. The mere force and art of every picture in the film is a perfect collaboration and every detail has its place. Of course one will not tend to notice even half of the details after viewing the film less then four times. It is seldom that I have seen such details and such a power behind them. They work in both the physical and psychological sense.
As for the deliberate overacting I can do nothing but applaud Cherkasov as I am watching the film. Every small movement and every facial expression is planed, practiced and preformed with the utmost brilliance.
"Ivan... part 2" is also better than part 1. Mostly because Eisenstein's now very visible portrayal of Stalin and the history of the Russian leaders ever-present enslavement and despotism over their people. In part 2, all of the Soviet moralism and patriotic messages are long gone and Eisensteins dark and morbid portrayals dominate most of the film.
It is not a mystery why Stalin and the Communist part banned the film. Eisenstein's work reached its very peak in "Ivan..." and it is a real shame that he could not finish it and that he's hand were bound during the making of it. In my opinion it could have been perhaps the greatest film series of all time and I believe that even though the excellence and the sheer brilliance of Part 2, Eisenstein would have made the unfinished Part 3 just as brilliant.
Yes, it did. But not just matched them. It actually surpassed these and with its magnificent elegance, fearfulness and malevolent imagery, it outshone any contenders in the field of scenography and images. Kubrick and Bergman almost falls as easy and simple in comparison to this marvelous masterpiece.
Some can claim "Ivan..." to be a over pretentious work, falling by its own weight and volume and that the deliberate overacting by Cherkasov (among others) only helps the fall. Personally I can not agree. The mere force and art of every picture in the film is a perfect collaboration and every detail has its place. Of course one will not tend to notice even half of the details after viewing the film less then four times. It is seldom that I have seen such details and such a power behind them. They work in both the physical and psychological sense.
As for the deliberate overacting I can do nothing but applaud Cherkasov as I am watching the film. Every small movement and every facial expression is planed, practiced and preformed with the utmost brilliance.
"Ivan... part 2" is also better than part 1. Mostly because Eisenstein's now very visible portrayal of Stalin and the history of the Russian leaders ever-present enslavement and despotism over their people. In part 2, all of the Soviet moralism and patriotic messages are long gone and Eisensteins dark and morbid portrayals dominate most of the film.
It is not a mystery why Stalin and the Communist part banned the film. Eisenstein's work reached its very peak in "Ivan..." and it is a real shame that he could not finish it and that he's hand were bound during the making of it. In my opinion it could have been perhaps the greatest film series of all time and I believe that even though the excellence and the sheer brilliance of Part 2, Eisenstein would have made the unfinished Part 3 just as brilliant.