Talk:Ivan the Terrible (1944 film)

Sources SOURCES!

We need sources for claims of Stalin's admiration for Ivan etc. Where is it?

-G

Added Images

Ipaat, I reverted your changes where you added images. There isn't enough text to put that many images, and there was one that completely messed up the text. I don't know anything about the movie so I can't enlarge the article. --Dandin1 23:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Image

In the film Princess Staritskaya was played by Serafima Birman, not Ranevskaya. I believe it is a photo from a test. Mapple 19:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I fixed that in the caption. The image description page itself states that the picture is from a screen test. - Bobet 15:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Legend, myth etc.

Over this past summer, I had several lectures on Ivan the Terrible films. In this, Professor Robert "Bob" Efird of Virginia Tech mentioned (at least three times) that Sergei Eisenstein died minutes, heartbroken after being told on the phone that Ivan the Terrible Part 2 (his magna opus) wouldn't be released.

This was due to the implications Part 2 made about Stalin (i.e. that Ivan, symbolizing Stalin in the films, goes crazy, and starts killing innocent Russians through his secret bodyguard (Ivan's oprichniki parallels Stalin's secret police/KGB etc etc).

Eisenstein understood this, and so at the end of Part 2 made Ivan and various members of his Oprichniki salute the camera in the name of communism as Eisenstein's attempt to pacify Stalin.

In short, Stalin having personally reviewed the film concluded (correctly) that he would be portrayed negatively, and so refused its distribution in the Soviet Union, and ordered the destruction of what was completed of the end of Ivan the Terrible, Part Three (80% was destroyed, approxiamte 16 minutes of the 20 minutes was burned to ash). Thus one of the greatest films ever made was prematurely finished, with no real ending.

Also, perhaps it's worth mentioning the fact in the article that in Russian history no greater parallel exists then that between Ivan the Terrible and Stalin. It would give greater meaning to the film.

Has anyone else heard this before? Can it be added? Any thoughts are appreciated.

Zidel333 07:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually the notions/symbols which are against rulers like Stalin are even present in the "government's cut" version of the Part I. One can understand the roots of the madness and tyranny even better if he/she can have a chance to watch the "director's cut" of the film which was censored for a while. Still people criticize Eisenstein as being a tool for the Soviet government but they have to keep one thing in mind; Ivan the Terrible was in fact a successful leader who in a way united the Russian feudal system during the first phase of his reign. Therefore it is also natural to see a wild ruler in Part II, in line with the facts of history. It was banned, luckily now we can see it whenever we want, but nobody could accept Part III which would depict a man who trips around the zenith of madness. You can see it in the very short footage left from the film. The director actually survived the Part II tragedy, as the film had been ready since 1946 so he probably understood that the government won't give way to it, but died during shooting Part III. It is a sad example to the idea that revolution kills his own children. Deliogul (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Film Study Notes?

I want to add a section on why this film is considered a 20th Century classic, mostly on Eisenstein’s stylistic interpretations (all the major characters are portrayed as animals), the dramatic use of shadowing, the frequent symbols echoed again and again (the single eye for instance), the dance scene with homosexual overtones in the 2nd part etc. etc.

Also, maybe a section on how the film deviates from the actual history is in order.

Any thought? Anyone willing to collaborate? I need to purchase this online and watch it in it's entirety before I want to add this though.

Zidel333 05:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

For many years I believed that the film's downfall was due to the perceived parallel with Stalin's figure. After twice watching the whole film in 2005, I can surely say that Eisenstein's masterpiece transforms itself into a complete gay Broadway show by the end of the second part (not just in the dance scene). I suspect that in the politicized atmosphere of Soviet cinema it was more approapriate to talk about film's demise as being due to politics. Eisenstein's films are all full of his homosexuality, but it was often lost on the general public, who, I think, might have confused it with over-dramatization so characteristic of the Soviet theater at the time. The film is really quite a gay propaganda piece, that can hardly be taken seriously as a truthful presentation of Russian History or even as a parallel to Stalin's rule. I suspect that Eisenstein was more homosexual than "political". While Stalin was getting "propaganda" reels from Eisenstein, the filmmaker was getting his own "agenda" through. If he did indeed die minutes after Stalin's condemnation of the film, it was not because he lamented the end of his great "portrayal" of USSR under Stalin - it was because he regretted the silencing of that very dance scene. Anchorite 06:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That's seems a little POV to me Anchorite. ;-) I honestly think the dance scene isn't "Broadway" as you put it, over the top to be sure, but certainly cutting edge considering eh time and circumstance. Gay Propaganda? Far from it, the only major section of the movie was the dance scene at the end of Part Two. To be honest, Eisenstein is considered by many to have been bisexual, and so it isn't "gay" per se. The gender reversal of Mistress of the Boyars, Princess Staritskaya, and her effeminate son the Prince Vladimir Andreyevich Staritsky, is much more pertinent then the dance scene, and thus isn't "gay propaganda". Its more about genders and one's sexuality, then the more constricted topic of "gay".

As for Eisenstein's death, this is quite open to interpretation, and speculation, as I indicated in my previous addition to the Talk page. I think it worthy of adding to the article, and certainly, other views are welcome, but I see no citation to your idea.

Finally for historical accuracy, any one who knows a whit about Russian history will know that this is a historical epic with great artistic license. To be honest it goes without saying if you see it, and to be frank how sure can we be of these events that occurred nearly 500 years ago? Precisely, why I want to add the historical inaccuracy section.

Do not take me wrong, you seem very smart. :D

Zidel333 22:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I myself saw more campiness in both parts than any of the alleged "terribleness" of Ivan and, in turn, Stalin. From the first minutes of dialogue of part I, the campy overacting reminded me greatly of Fassbinder's gay cinema, which I hear was based on Douglas Sirk's campy kitsch films. --87.180.197.207 (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Willy Wonka

I couldn't help but notice the musical similarities between the monk's chorus during the banquet scene in part II and the Oompa Loompa's song "Oompa Loompa Doompa-De-Do" in Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory. Listen to the rythm and tone when the chorus sings "come along! come along! What happens next? What happens next?" and see what you think. It's a very close match. Anyone else notice this? Rklawton 19:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Production

Some information on the film's production would be nice.--Paleface Jack (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The current article claims it was all shot in Alma-Ata, but I recall reading now and then that some parts of Pt 2 were indeed shot in Moscow, which had become safe for movie work by 1944/45. Some of Pt 3 was projected to be shot in the Baltic provinces (Estonia, etc) which had been taken over by the end of the war; those episodes would deal with Ivan's wars with the Swedes in Estonia and Ingria (and near present-day St.Petersburg). Strausszek (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Release Date

Can we get a citation on the release date? According to imdb, it wasn't released until January 20, 1945. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.86.156 (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

"Was released in 1958 and banned on the order of Stalin."

Stalin was five years dead in 1958, so this makes no sense. 2001:569:7BB7:D200:F9CD:9B2A:442A:9AB0 (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Lacking reference

Wheres the evidence for that? "Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin, who admired and identified with Ivan." --2A02:8389:2181:A400:D847:6B00:40BC:8CC3 (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Part III

There is a short clip available (and some stills) - what would the best link be? Jackiespeel (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)