Ivan the terrible
Dublin Core
Title
Ivan the terrible
Subject
Ivan the terrible Part-1 and Part-2 (1944 & 1958)
(Film; Eisenstein)
(Film; Eisenstein)
Description
Sergei Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible book consists of screenplays of three parts of Ivan the Terrible. In the third part, he could not make the film due to politics and lack of funding. It also contains essays from different people like Rostislav Yurenyev, Mikhail Romm and Nikolai Cherkasov. It stands not only as a cinematic marvel but also as a testament to the intricate dance between artistic expression and the rigid political landscape of Stalinist Russia. This comprehensive case study delves into the depths of Part I and Part II, exploring how Eisenstein's cinematic brilliance intersected with the politics of the time.
Part I, released in 1944, marked a pinnacle in Eisenstein's use of montage—a technique that challenged traditional storytelling norms. Against the backdrop of Stalin's rule, this section examines how Eisenstein's portrayal of Ivan IV as a complex leader intersected with the Soviet political narrative. The film's oscillation between grandiosity and intimate character studies becomes a canvas where political subtleties intertwine with cinematic innovation.
Released in 1958, Part II continued Eisenstein's artistic exploration amid Stalinist politics. The case study results in how the film's visual richness, enhanced by color and symbolism, navigated the parameters set by the political climate. Part II deepens the psychological exploration of Ivan, highlighting Eisenstein's ability to balance cinematic excellence with the expectations of a government that sought to control its narrative.
Sergei Eisenstein's unfinished masterpiece, Ivan the Terrible, was no ordinary movie. Commissioned by Joseph Stalin in 1941 to justify state terror in the sixteenth century and the twentieth, the film's politics, style, and epic scope aroused controversy even before it was released. In This Thing of Darkness, Joan Neuberger offers a sweeping account of the conception, making, and reception of Ivan the Terrible that weaves together Eisenstein's expansive thinking and experimental practice with a groundbreaking new view of artistic production under Stalin. Drawing on Eisenstein's unpublished production notebooks, diaries, and manuscripts, Neuberger's riveting narrative chronicles Eisenstein's personal, creative, and political challenges and reveals the ways cinematic invention, artistic theory, political critique, and historical and psychological analysis went hand in hand in this famously complex film. Neuberger's bold arguments and daring insights into every aspect of Eisenstein's work during this period, together with her ability to lucidly connect his wide-ranging late theory with his work on Ivan, show the director exploiting the institutions of Soviet artistic production not only to expose the cruelties of Stalin and his circle but to challenge the fundamental principles of Soviet ideology itself. Ivan the Terrible, she argues, shows us one of the world's greatest filmmakers and one of the 20th century's greatest artists observing the world around him and experimenting with every element of film art to explore the psychology of political ambition, uncover the history of recurring cycles of violence and lay bare the tragedy of absolute power. (Neuberger, Joan)
This critical section widens its lens to examine the political controversies that submerge the trilogy. The abandonment of the third part and alterations made to appease Stalinist ideologies become focal points. The case study analyzes how Eisenstein grappled with the clash between his artistic vision and the Stalinist insistence on a heroic depiction of historical figures. The political tightrope walk during the trilogy's production is dissected to understand its lasting impact. Stalin did have an interest in Soviet cinema, and filmmakers, including actors, were sometimes involved in political or ideological discussions. However, the details of individual interviews between Stalin and actors may not be widely documented or publicly available and this has a section where Nikolai interviewed Stalin.
This new section conducts a detailed case study of the Stalinist political landscape and its impact on Soviet cinema. It delves into the political directives that shaped the narrative of historical films, exploring how artists like Eisenstein navigated the demands of socialist realism. This analysis provides a nuanced understanding of the constraints imposed on filmmakers and the resulting compromises in the pursuit of both art and political alignment.
Your tsar has come out as being indecisive, he resembles Hamlet. Everybody prompts him as to what is to be done, and he does not take any decision… Tsar Ivan was a great and wise ruler, and if he is compared with Ludwig XI (you have read about Ludwig XI who prepared absolutism for Ludwig XIV), then Ivan the Terrible is in the tenth heaven. The wisdom of Ivan the Terrible is reflected by the following: he looked at things from the national point of view and did not allow foreigners into his country, he barricaded the country from the entry of foreign influence. By showing Ivan the Terrible in this manner you have committed a deviation and a mistake. Peter I was also a great ruler, but he was extremely liberal towards foreigners, he opened the gate wide to them allowed foreign influence into the country, and permitted the Germanization of Russia. Catherine allowed it even more. And further. Was the court of Alexander I really a Russian court? Was the Court of Nikolai I, a Russian court? No, they were German courts. (Stalin’s response on the movie) (Stalin on the Film Ivan the Terrible, 2016)
This special artifact is like a unique historical tapestry, but it's got something even more extraordinary — an interview with a famous dictator and an actor. It's not your typical old item, it's a window into a secret conversation with a powerful leader. Picture finding a treasure that not only captures the thoughts of a dictator but also involves an actor. It's like a double discovery, revealing layers of history. Film critics, when analyzing this, might see it as an invaluable gem, shedding light not just on political history but also on the art of storytelling through the actor's perspective. The concluding section reflects on the enduring legacy of Eisenstein's trilogy within the complex tapestry of Stalinist politics. Despite political pressures, Eisenstein's innovations continue to resonate. The case study considers how the trilogy's controversies contribute to its enduring mystique, highlighting the delicate dance between artistic vision and political reality.
Sergei Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible trilogy emerges not only as a cinematic masterpiece but as a fascinating case study of art navigating the intricacies of Stalinist politics. This comprehensive exploration offers insights into the delicate balance Eisenstein maintained between cinematic innovation and political conformity, underscoring the enduring impact of his work in a tumultuous political landscape.
References:
Neuberger, J. (2019). This Thing of Darkness: Eisenstein’s Ivan the Terrible in Stalin’s Russia. Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501732775
Stalin on the film Ivan the Terrible. (2016, February 23). Seventeen Moments in Soviet History. https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1943-2/the-cult-of-leadership/the-cult-of-leadership-texts/stalin-on-the-film-ivan-the-terrible/
Part I, released in 1944, marked a pinnacle in Eisenstein's use of montage—a technique that challenged traditional storytelling norms. Against the backdrop of Stalin's rule, this section examines how Eisenstein's portrayal of Ivan IV as a complex leader intersected with the Soviet political narrative. The film's oscillation between grandiosity and intimate character studies becomes a canvas where political subtleties intertwine with cinematic innovation.
Released in 1958, Part II continued Eisenstein's artistic exploration amid Stalinist politics. The case study results in how the film's visual richness, enhanced by color and symbolism, navigated the parameters set by the political climate. Part II deepens the psychological exploration of Ivan, highlighting Eisenstein's ability to balance cinematic excellence with the expectations of a government that sought to control its narrative.
Sergei Eisenstein's unfinished masterpiece, Ivan the Terrible, was no ordinary movie. Commissioned by Joseph Stalin in 1941 to justify state terror in the sixteenth century and the twentieth, the film's politics, style, and epic scope aroused controversy even before it was released. In This Thing of Darkness, Joan Neuberger offers a sweeping account of the conception, making, and reception of Ivan the Terrible that weaves together Eisenstein's expansive thinking and experimental practice with a groundbreaking new view of artistic production under Stalin. Drawing on Eisenstein's unpublished production notebooks, diaries, and manuscripts, Neuberger's riveting narrative chronicles Eisenstein's personal, creative, and political challenges and reveals the ways cinematic invention, artistic theory, political critique, and historical and psychological analysis went hand in hand in this famously complex film. Neuberger's bold arguments and daring insights into every aspect of Eisenstein's work during this period, together with her ability to lucidly connect his wide-ranging late theory with his work on Ivan, show the director exploiting the institutions of Soviet artistic production not only to expose the cruelties of Stalin and his circle but to challenge the fundamental principles of Soviet ideology itself. Ivan the Terrible, she argues, shows us one of the world's greatest filmmakers and one of the 20th century's greatest artists observing the world around him and experimenting with every element of film art to explore the psychology of political ambition, uncover the history of recurring cycles of violence and lay bare the tragedy of absolute power. (Neuberger, Joan)
This critical section widens its lens to examine the political controversies that submerge the trilogy. The abandonment of the third part and alterations made to appease Stalinist ideologies become focal points. The case study analyzes how Eisenstein grappled with the clash between his artistic vision and the Stalinist insistence on a heroic depiction of historical figures. The political tightrope walk during the trilogy's production is dissected to understand its lasting impact. Stalin did have an interest in Soviet cinema, and filmmakers, including actors, were sometimes involved in political or ideological discussions. However, the details of individual interviews between Stalin and actors may not be widely documented or publicly available and this has a section where Nikolai interviewed Stalin.
This new section conducts a detailed case study of the Stalinist political landscape and its impact on Soviet cinema. It delves into the political directives that shaped the narrative of historical films, exploring how artists like Eisenstein navigated the demands of socialist realism. This analysis provides a nuanced understanding of the constraints imposed on filmmakers and the resulting compromises in the pursuit of both art and political alignment.
Your tsar has come out as being indecisive, he resembles Hamlet. Everybody prompts him as to what is to be done, and he does not take any decision… Tsar Ivan was a great and wise ruler, and if he is compared with Ludwig XI (you have read about Ludwig XI who prepared absolutism for Ludwig XIV), then Ivan the Terrible is in the tenth heaven. The wisdom of Ivan the Terrible is reflected by the following: he looked at things from the national point of view and did not allow foreigners into his country, he barricaded the country from the entry of foreign influence. By showing Ivan the Terrible in this manner you have committed a deviation and a mistake. Peter I was also a great ruler, but he was extremely liberal towards foreigners, he opened the gate wide to them allowed foreign influence into the country, and permitted the Germanization of Russia. Catherine allowed it even more. And further. Was the court of Alexander I really a Russian court? Was the Court of Nikolai I, a Russian court? No, they were German courts. (Stalin’s response on the movie) (Stalin on the Film Ivan the Terrible, 2016)
This special artifact is like a unique historical tapestry, but it's got something even more extraordinary — an interview with a famous dictator and an actor. It's not your typical old item, it's a window into a secret conversation with a powerful leader. Picture finding a treasure that not only captures the thoughts of a dictator but also involves an actor. It's like a double discovery, revealing layers of history. Film critics, when analyzing this, might see it as an invaluable gem, shedding light not just on political history but also on the art of storytelling through the actor's perspective. The concluding section reflects on the enduring legacy of Eisenstein's trilogy within the complex tapestry of Stalinist politics. Despite political pressures, Eisenstein's innovations continue to resonate. The case study considers how the trilogy's controversies contribute to its enduring mystique, highlighting the delicate dance between artistic vision and political reality.
Sergei Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible trilogy emerges not only as a cinematic masterpiece but as a fascinating case study of art navigating the intricacies of Stalinist politics. This comprehensive exploration offers insights into the delicate balance Eisenstein maintained between cinematic innovation and political conformity, underscoring the enduring impact of his work in a tumultuous political landscape.
References:
Neuberger, J. (2019). This Thing of Darkness: Eisenstein’s Ivan the Terrible in Stalin’s Russia. Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501732775
Stalin on the film Ivan the Terrible. (2016, February 23). Seventeen Moments in Soviet History. https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1943-2/the-cult-of-leadership/the-cult-of-leadership-texts/stalin-on-the-film-ivan-the-terrible/
Creator
Sergei Eisenstein (Author),
Rostislav Yurenyev,
Mikhail Romm and
Nikolai Cherkasov.
Rostislav Yurenyev,
Mikhail Romm and
Nikolai Cherkasov.
Source
Ivan the terrible (Screenplay; Eisenstein; 1944-1958)
Classical Film Scripts
Classical Film Scripts
Publisher
Lorrimer Publishing Company
Date
Original Published: 1965
Reprinted Edition: 1985
Reprinted Edition: 1985
Contributor
Abhay M. Parmar
Rights
All rights reserved to Lorrimer Publishing Company, London
Format
Width: 140 mm; height: 205 mm; depth: 18 mm.
Language
English
Type
Tie-in Book, Screenplay
Identifier
ISBN : 0900855363
BDC #35337
BDC #35337
Coverage
Screenplay of Ivan the terrible trilogy and various essays
Files
Collection
Citation
Sergei Eisenstein (Author),
Rostislav Yurenyev,
Mikhail Romm and
Nikolai Cherkasov., “Ivan the terrible,” Archival Encounters: Digital Exhibitions form the Bill Douglas Cinema Museum, accessed January 14, 2025, https://humanities-research.exeter.ac.uk/archivalencounters/items/show/37.