Dalbert Pringle (Movie Quote) - "You will answer for this before God!" And, was "Ivan The Terrible" terrible movie-making? No. As a matter of fact, it wasn't.Starting off with an incredibly freakish and super-surreal opening sequence, "Ivan The Terrible" (filmed in the mid-1940s, in 2 parts, totalling 187 minutes) is particularly notable for its position in foreign-movie history.Directed by Sergei Eisenstein, this lavish and equally bizarre film was actually commissioned by Soviet Premier, Joseph Stalin (who admired and identified himself with the title character). (It was later, though, that Stalin condemned said-film once Eisenstein had completed Part 2)I mean, you really have to see this wacky production for yourself to believe it. It certainly is loaded to the rafters with all sorts of hammy performances and unintentionally laughable scenes that are sure to provide some worthy moments of entertainment.Heavy-as-lead with religious and political ideology, this film's most outstanding asset was, of course, its striking cinematography that, at times, was like witnessing a historical nightmare as seen through the collective eyes of the highly subjective Russian citizens.

felixoteiza 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.

fbmorinigo I have two comments to make about some disparaging remarks made by other contributors: First, it is naive to condemn this film as "propaganda" -- GONE WITH THE WIND is all propaganda about how great the Old South was and how great the Ku Klux Klan was. LAWRENCE OF ARABIA is propaganda about how heroic and clever the English were and how corrupt the Turks were. DR STRANGELOVE is all propaganda, too. THE ALAMO and other John Wayne films are propaganda about how great the conquest of the West was, how heroic the ethnic cleansing against the Indians was, and how corrupt the Mexicans were. So spare me your hypocritical condemnation of this film as "Stalinist Propaganda".Secondly, what definitions can there be for whether a film is "great" or not? I suggest the use of two criteria: (A) Is viewing the film multiple times worthwhile and interesting? (B) Does viewing the film represent a memorable life experience? With these criteria, it does not matter whether the film is "dated" or the acting is "overdone" or whether the sound is flawed or in this or that quality. I certainly find IVAN THE TERRIBLE more interesting the more times I view it. On the other hand, there are movies that I consider "great" even though I refuse to watch them ever again, because I found them unbearably sad -- recent examples are SCHINDLER'S LIST and MILLION DOLLAR BABY.

Steffi_P Despite spending his career under an increasingly restrictive regime which regarded cinema as a tool to propagate the government line and needed only the slightest excuse to censor or ban pictures, Sergei Eisenstein always had his own ideas and agendas which shone through the propaganda. Ivan the Terrible was commissioned by the Soviet government to glorify a dead dictator, with whom the living dictator (Stalin) identified, but in Eisenstein's hands it became much more than that – one of the greatest studies of power in the history of cinema.Ivan the Terrible is primarily concerned with the conflict between the institutional power of the system and the charismatic power of individuals. This theme is all set up in the opening scene. It begins with a shot of the crown, and then goes through the various rituals of Ivan's coronation, whilst in the background various dignitaries whisper their doubts to each other. Ivan's face is not even shown until the crown goes on his head. It's clear at this point that we are seeing the creation of a symbolic figurehead tsar – the rituals and symbols of power mean more than the man himself. However, when Ivan begins to speak he talks of uniting Russia and ruling with an iron fist. From the series of reaction shots, we are told straight away that the assorted aristocrats, state officials and clergymen wanted a puppet ruler, and are now horrified. Throughout the film Eisenstein uses this kind of cinematic shorthand to reveal the shifting loyalties and private thoughts of characters. More than any other film I can think of, you can understand what is going on in Ivan the Terrible without needing to understand the dialogue or see the subtitles – the story is told purely in images.Although Eisenstein had been making films for twenty years before this, it's clear his style was still evolving. He editing technique prior to this was mostly used to enhance action sequences or make political points through comparisons. Now he uses it to convey emotions and relations between characters. If he had lived a little longer he could perhaps have broadened his horizons and become a director of dramas. Still, as with his previous works this is a story told more through the masses of people – not through the individuals.Perhaps the biggest change between Eisenstein's early silent works and these later sound films is in their level of stylisation. While the silent films may have been very visually dynamic, the way they were staged and acted was essentially realist – the crowds, the action, the set ups all looked authentic. Ivan the Terrible on the other hand is theatrical, almost operatic – stentorian voices, exaggerated gestures and outlandish looking characters. One thing along these lines that is consistent throughout all his pictures (and was sometimes at odds with the realism of his earlier work) is the way in which he cast and directed his actors so as to leave no doubts as to their character. While the lead roles were filled by strikingly good-looking actors, the villains were often painfully ugly, and are often made to look ridiculous in the way they act. Look at, for example, Ivan's rival for the throne Vladimir, whom Eisenstein turns into a half-wit with a vacant expression. He also likes to remind us of animals – for example the conniving, hunchbacked diplomat who resembles some kind of crow.Eisenstein also here takes on an expressionist look for the first time – very en vogue in Hollywood at the time, but virtually an unknown movement in Soviet cinema. Ivan the Terrible is set largely in dim, grimy interiors – in contrast to earlier Eisenstein pictures which took place largely outdoors – so the grainy, moody look is quite appropriate. He pays a great deal of attention to lighting, with characters often throwing large shadows against walls very much in the style of Fritz Lang and Michael Curtiz.Of the two completed parts of Ivan the Terrible (there was to be a third, but it was axed by the government during production), I personally prefer the second. They are more or less identical in style, but Part 1 is made up of a series of short episodes and is a little less engaging. The coronation and wedding scenes are perfectly constructed, and the war on Kazan is up there with the battle scenes in Aleksandr Nevsky. I find the later scenes with Ivan's brush with death and his self-imposed exile a little slow, even though they are still incredibly well made.