Watch Ivan the Terrible, Part I For Free

Why so much hype?

Memorable, crazy movie

A Disappointing Continuation

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

It's a stupid propaganda flick. The characters are absurd and disappointingly cartoonish. They skulk, they glower, they orate, they stare off into the far distance with madly lit faces in heroic or sinister half-profile, they faint -- an amazing amount -- or just collapse in a heap, or fling themselves around the room, and generally overact in a forced and completely unbelievable way at all times. It doesn't help that the subtitles are continually drawing your eye down to the bottom of the screen (only to find yourself reading script lines even more retarded than the acting and the pacing and the bizarre settings). It is in fact a ridiculous, contemptible film & almost unbearable to watch, except in a so-bad-its-good kind of a way. You have to sneer, scoff, make up your own sappy dialogue, etc. But you keep watching.By the end of part two (which is even stranger, what with Ivan's beard and the demented, totally gay colour sequence) it is clear that the only thing left to do is to watch the whole thing again from the beginning, which is a weird response. This time around though, everything has changed -- or else you have -- because it is now spellbinding, moving, way better than good. It is in fact one of the most remarkably satisfying movies ever made, even without Part III, and pretty much everything that was crap about it turns out to have been your fault, a result of your own blinkered inability to see what was in front of you all the time.I don't get it, but wow . . . not half impressive. And as a bonus, the extras on the Criterion DVD (especially the second disc) will even help you start to understand what the hell just happened.

Part I of Eisenstein's masterpiece "Ivan the Terrible" (Part III of the intended trilogy wasn't completed). (Also see my review of Part II for additional comments.) The storyline may be unfamiliar and the film is heavily "episodic". So first skim Wikipedia articles "Ivan the Terrible" and "Ivan the Terrible (film)", and understand the terms "Tsar" and "third Rome".This is not just a simple wartime morale booster. It explicates Eisenstein's personal theories of "what made Ivan tick?" (although this theme may be obscured by censor-required changes, especially in Part I): childhood trauma, the heavy burden of power, great power inevitably corrupts, force of personal will overpowered good sense, "Great Rusian State" too abstract and unrealistic a goal, even a possible Faustian bargain. The recently prominent biological possibilities (sublethal dose of his wife's poison; near-death illness; regular use of mercury-based pain medication; inherited manic-depressive cycles) aren't even considered.The Netflix DVD contained an early transfer from Corinth Films, Inc. The barely acceptable sound quality did no favors to Sergei Prokofiev's excellent score, and the hard to read subtitles were burned right into the picture itself. A DVD from Hong Kong (via eBay) was the same mediocre transfer with the same burned in English subtitles, and again no commentary nor bonus materials. The Criterion version image transfer was much better, and the sound had more consistent loudness and less hiss (but the net sound quality -apparently inherited from the original- still wasn't very good). New similar (if somewhat more literally translated) subtitles are easier to read and control. There's both a commentary and lots of helpful bonus materials, including some lengthy alternate sequences.(The Criterion version is part of "Eisenstein: The Sound Years" - avoid the titles "Ivan the Terrible, Parts I and II" which are the old Corinth transfer!)

While still a remarkable production, ITT-1 doesn't nearly reach the peaks of excellence of its namesake and sequel ITT-2. Technically is still great, a visual masterpiece, but there are several factors—natural or logical, fruit of the circumstances, etc—preventing it from becoming the classic the later is. For one thing, its episodic nature, which robs the film of an adequate building up of tensions, an emotional crescendo, culminating in a spectacular denouement as we see in the sequel, in those unforgettable dance & Church scenes. That's the problem with episodic plots, that much of the tension generated and accumulated in each episode, or that lingering from previous ones, dissolves during it, even more when closure comes with that ending, which leaves for the next episode the task of starting building tensions and focusing once again. We may compare both ITT-1 and 2, with two race cars starting both from the same point and then car 2 accelerating until reaching its maximum speed while car 1 goes stopping every hundred feet. That's what happens here with ITT-1 and its sequel. That's why the sequel is more exciting to watch, at it's far more focused, more tightly weaved as a story.The best ex. of what I'm saying about ITT-1 is the war on Kazan. It happens, then we never hear of it again, not even as a memory, its only contribution to the main plot line having been that establishes Ivan as a smart, strong and powerful conqueror, and that also informs us on the origins on the great trust he'll put later on the three men on which he would base his Oprishkina, the Basmanovs and Malyuta. That's very informative, of course, something we had to know, but it shows also the price ITT-1 pays for having come out first; for making possible for the sequel to be such an epic, as it's the one in charge of preparing the terrain for it, developing those themes and elements that will come to heed in the second part, the conflicts that will come clashing to the open. Different, unrelated, elements have to be gradually brought together to complete the required palette of characters and events. That's the task of ITT-1 and that's what makes its writing so dispersed and its action so unfocused.But apart from that there are also some flaws in the editing, the directing, that at times practically take us out of what should be the mood of the moment. For ex., the brush of Ivan with death comes immediately after his victory in Kazan; there's absolutely no transition there, no triumphal return to his people, like we see in Alexander Nevsky. Ivan wins the battle and next he's dying in bed (BTW, it's just me or that was just a trick to weasel out those he shouldn't trust? Come on, one moment he's dying and the next he's running around making speeches). Also the whole sequence is way too long, with and excruciatingly slow pace at times, which works against the pacing of the whole movie, as it totally clashes with that of the previous, the assault of Kazan. So, transitions are not always smooth here, many are even bumpy, abrupt, as if entire scenes had been edited out. That happens for ex. with Anastasia's death: she drinks the poisoned liquid and next we are already in her funeral.Despite all its faults, ITT-1 still makes for one movie worth watching, especially if you have already seen the sequel. Technically is still impeccable, the same attention to detail by the director; the same allegoric surroundings we see in ITT-2—after all both unfold in the same environment, the Czar's palace, the church, etc. Also present here are the trademark close ups on the purposely lighted faces of the actors, the focus on their expressionist eye movements and the middle shots exposing them against a background of deliberately chosen imagery—-as the fresco of a cadaverous face, a human skull, on a wall during funeral; the ever present combinations of light and shadows to create the expected mood. Also, contrary to other reviewers, I love these pompous, grandiloquent characters, so self-conscious all, who when talking seem to be pronouncing every one of their words for the Ages; each one seeming to believe they have some transcendental truth to communicate, some divine mission to accomplish, as they keep mentioning God as if certain that God was on their side. For someone more or less familiar with the works of Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, nothing less than what we see here is what we expect from a Russian epic, in the acting department. The only one I didn't quite like it is Nazvanov. He overacts most of his scenes, so much so at time he gave me the impression of watching a mime, a ballet dancer, rather than an actor.In all, technically as great as the sequel, and so the acting, but the pacing, the editing, the score, suffer somewhat, not the least because of official State meddling--Eisenstein wanted to begin the movie with the scenes of the young Ivan, but Stalin considered too depressing. 7.5/10.

In the times of Stalinist monstrosity, what could one expect from the Soviet movies was sheer propaganda, pictures of no individuals with their complexities but of the nation, the masses as a supreme hero. In the early 1940s, Sergei Eisenstein's choice to make a film about the tsarist Russia occurred a hard task to handle as an ambiguous production with ambiguous targets. Although the Soviet art, at that time, was a little more open to represent the historical figures (obviously shaping them to the 'appropriate values' widely imposed upon artistic visions), the unpopular tsarist Russia depicted on the screen was, anyway, challenging at multiple levels. One had to be content with less than planned... Yet, thanks to director's flexibility in the politically correct opening and closing, IVAN THE TERRIBLE's world popularity nowadays is nothing but a shadow of its initial acclaim in the Soviet Union.The prologue, though reflects clearly the ideal of the times, leads us to the close-up of regalia at the magnificent Cathedral of the Dormition where the coronation of prince Ivan takes place. We see the shining crown before we see his face, we hear the blissful chants before he hear his words. He becomes the new tsar – the man, the monarch, the uniting ruler who appealed to the depraved mind of Joseph Stalin in his idea of controlling the masses. Is he, similarly, the man who wants power for himself? Is he the ruler of terror in the 'third Rome?' Is there any disguise in the nation's 'father' who will reject the conspiracies against his authority? A nationalist who rejects the foreign pressures on internal politics? The man who does not want to be influenced by foreign ideas?Although the historical Ivan (1530-1584) was, perhaps, such a 'cosmopolitan ruler' (speaking in today's terms), the movie IVAN THE TERRIBLE is none of these. While it inevitably appears to be the product of the politics that examined and limited it, the movie is foremost the manifestation of Eisenstein's creative contribution to cinema influenced by various foreign trends observed in the first half of the 20th century. The film immediately raised the interest worldwide (Charlie Chaplin championed it as "the greatest historic film that has ever been made"), there is still, after all these years, hardly any movie which has been debated so widely by film scholars. Eisenstein proved that cinema can truly serve the task of intellectual stimulation by his baroque vision, his symbolism, his experience with various studies (as Yuri Tsivian mentions that in his book about the film). But when we leave all the learned notes and consider this film from a fresh perspective...with modern habits and desire for entertainment?The key strength of the movie lies in the use of images, the unforgettable, haunting, nightmarish, unforgettable visuals that seem to evoke a variety of feelings. Deeply influenced by German Expressionism, much visual attention is stirred by light and shadow...let me note one of the most powerful scenes when the shadow of Ivan's head occurs to dominate all the set. The bizarre wardrobe worn particularly by the foreigners in the coronation scene go with the perception of the plot and introduce symbols in a powerful manner. What is familiar and what is weird? The atmospheric impressions reach their climax at the tsar mourning his beloved wife, Anastasia Romanovna, already placed in the coffin located at the superior position. That characterizes the most memorable moments of the film, including Ivan's illness, the noteworthy wedding scene, the Kazan sequence.Another great artistic merit of the movie is sometimes traditional, sometimes melancholic, sometimes haunted yet considerably operatic music by Eisenstein's eminent collaborator and a reliable friend, Sergei Prokofiev, an icon Russian musician of the 20th century. The music seems to combine many elements and appears to make a significant contribution to both the storyline and the atmosphere. Andrew Grossman nicely puts it: "We cannot speak of Ivan the Terrible without mentioning Prokofiev's peerlessly melodic score (...), which, like the film's acting style, often provides a kind of counterpoint to the action." A 1981 New York Times review adds about Prokofiev's music as "weighted with insistent significance, like the limited but exaggerated masque gestures and expressions found in Eisenstein's cinematic faces." Here, a mention must be made of Russian folk songs nicely adapted at the wedding scene as well as the blissful Russian Orthodox liturgy.The performances are, perhaps, the most flawed aspect of the film, the most flawed which does not mean unworthy attention. Of course, the standards of acting cannot be applied to modern ones and the approach is considerably theatrical and dated. Nikolai Cherkasov fits well to the role and portrays the character of an 'eccentric bird' (consider the symbols of animals incorporated in some characters) convincingly. He portrays a ruler who unfurls his wings like a bird and begins to walk his own path. Among the supporting cast, I consider Lyudmila Tselikovskaya worth attention as the loyal, gentle, beautiful tsarina. A good character, a sympathetic one, loyal to the tsar from the very day of the wedding! In opposition comes the devil-like, the snake Efrosinia, tsar's wicked aunt who wants her son as an heir to the throne. She, as a 'black' villain, evokes certain mechanism in our perceptions, stimulates us by her gestures (with reference to Meyerhold's biomechanics that Eisenstein had studied). She is clearly a character easily to be despised. Mikhail Nazvanov is also given a considerable time on the screen as the foxy prince Kurbsky.IVAN THE TERRIBLE PART I, as a historic movie, a Russian classic, a gem with some dated approach may indeed rouse and stimulate modern visions. Still more 'national' than 'individual' but interesting in overall view. The acceptance granted by the monsters in power at the time opened the door to a more complex development of the man who stands behind the upright visions, perhaps, a man in wrong places, at the wrong time, among wrong people? Content with less...?