Sergei Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible is far more than a historical biopic about the first Russian tsar. Instead, it is a deeply stylized, symbolic tragedy, drawing from theatrical traditions and Shakespearean plays such as Hamlet and Macbeth. Eisenstein deliberately distorts historical accuracy in favor of artistic expression, creating a multi-layered narrative that invites endless interpretations. From its operatic performances and abstract visuals to its exploration of power, tyranny, and human fallibility, Ivan the Terrible is a timeless parable that challenges viewers to look beyond the historical Ivan IV and into the universal themes of ambition, cruelty, and isolation.
***
It would be a mistake to treat Ivan the Terrible as a biopic, as a historical film. The stylization after opera and
Shakespeare's plays, such as Hamlet, King Lear, Macbeth, is deliberate: Eisenstein himself defined Ivan the Terrible as a "tragedy in the Shakespearean mode". Indeed: Ivan the Terrible tells about the real Ivan IV, the first Russian tsar, as much as Hamlet tells about the real 12th-century Amleth.
Ivan the Terrible sacrifices historicity for the sake of aesthetics and story: the chronology is not correct, many important events are simplified or omitted (to name a few - Ivan IV was officially married at least 4 times, he was crowned by metropolitan Makarius - not bishop Pimen, Efrosinia Staritskaya wasn't the sole head of the boyar opposition, Vladimir Staritsky wasn't mentally deficient, Grigory "Malyuta" Skuratov entered the tsar retinue well after the depicted events, the Basmanovs weren't commoners, etc.)
By many deliberate inaccuracies and generalizations, Eisenstein makes the point that he creates neither a biopic nor historical epic but a many-layered timeless parable. As the first opening credits say, in large letters: "This is a film about a man...". It’s hard to add anything more specific because of all the themes Ivan the Terrible incorporates. Is it about tyranny? Or about a man assuming the role of god? Or being "lonely at the top"? Or is it a desperate outcry against cruelty and autocracy? Or about the road to hell which is paved with good intentions? About revenge and retaliation - the cycle of violence which never breaks?... Like with Mona Lisa's smile - a multitude of interpretations is possible.
Ivan the Terrible combines both the elements of the classical European theater based on Shakespeare's plays, and the Asian theatrical tradition with its emphasis on gesture, pose, movement. The characters' faces seem to be inspired by Renaissance paintings but the body language is strongly influenced by Noh and Kabuki performance. And the Peking opera, of course: not surprising, considering Eisenstein's friendship with Mei Lanfang, the famous performer of female roles, whom he filmed during Mei Lanfang's visit to the USSR in 1935.
Ivan the Terrible sacrifices historicity for the sake of aesthetics and story: the chronology is not correct, many important events are simplified or omitted (to name a few - Ivan IV was officially married at least 4 times, he was crowned by metropolitan Makarius - not bishop Pimen, Efrosinia Staritskaya wasn't the sole head of the boyar opposition, Vladimir Staritsky wasn't mentally deficient, Grigory "Malyuta" Skuratov entered the tsar retinue well after the depicted events, the Basmanovs weren't commoners, etc.)
By many deliberate inaccuracies and generalizations, Eisenstein makes the point that he creates neither a biopic nor historical epic but a many-layered timeless parable. As the first opening credits say, in large letters: "This is a film about a man...". It’s hard to add anything more specific because of all the themes Ivan the Terrible incorporates. Is it about tyranny? Or about a man assuming the role of god? Or being "lonely at the top"? Or is it a desperate outcry against cruelty and autocracy? Or about the road to hell which is paved with good intentions? About revenge and retaliation - the cycle of violence which never breaks?... Like with Mona Lisa's smile - a multitude of interpretations is possible.
Ivan the Terrible combines both the elements of the classical European theater based on Shakespeare's plays, and the Asian theatrical tradition with its emphasis on gesture, pose, movement. The characters' faces seem to be inspired by Renaissance paintings but the body language is strongly influenced by Noh and Kabuki performance. And the Peking opera, of course: not surprising, considering Eisenstein's friendship with Mei Lanfang, the famous performer of female roles, whom he filmed during Mei Lanfang's visit to the USSR in 1935.
The actors speak in an over-the-top theatrical, unnatural manner. Their
movements are symbolic and suggestive, rather than realistic. Similar to
the Peking opera, Ivan the Terrible presents idealized, generalized images, that convey a spiritual
likeness of people, which stimulates the viewer's imagination - not just a
formal, physical resemblance.
While working on the film, Eisenstein thought in terms of lines, shapes, rhythm, and he demanded from actors a special kind of movement plastic. Eisenstein even wanted to cast great ballerina Galina Ulanova as Anastasia. As he wrote in the diary, "an act of movement is at the same time an act of thinking, and a thought - at the same time - is an action in space" ("двигательный акт есть одновременно акт мышления, а мысль - одновременно - пространственное действие"). This approach is especially noticeable in the scene where Ivan tries to stop metropolitan Philip from leaving in Part II - it’s a peerless choreographic sequence, with all that cloak pulling and mantle trampling.
_____________________________________________
It's worth noting that "Ivan the Terrible" is actually a
mistranslation. Ivan’s nickname, "Grozny", has nothing to do with
terror and doesn't have a bad meaning. Sometimes it's translated into
English as "Ivan the Fearsome", which is slightly more correct. In
fact, the adjective "grozny" is derived from the Russian word
"groza" - "thunderstorm". (That's why thunderstorm clouds serve
as background for the film credits.) In older Russian "groza"
also meant "threat" (its modern form - "ugroza"). One of the
Russian dictionaries explains the word "grozny" as "courageous, magnificent, magisterial and keeping enemies in fear,
but people in obedience". But, in my opinion, the best definition is provided by TVtropes.org: "terrifying yet awesome" - like a thunderstorm.
Another thing that may be confusing for a non-Russian viewer is who
were the Oprichniki and why they are considered bad guys. In short,
the Oprichniki were the tsar's personal punitive army with a dash of
Inquisition. They dressed in black and emulated the monastic life;
they weren't controlled by laws and answered only to the tsar. With
their help, Ivan IV established his autocratic reign: in uprooting any
opposition the Oprichniki extensively used tortures, mass murders, and
gruesome executions.
_____________________________________________
These three European ambassadors are blatant caricatures (which is especially noticeable because all other Europeans in the film look more "realistic"). However, their image should convey not historicity, but an emotion, impression: the Europeans look with disdain at "barbaric" Muscovy, and that's how the Muscovites see them in return, with their strange customs (like shaving) and odd impractical clothes:
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
In Ivan the Terrible walls have not only ears, but eyes as well - sometimes even too many. Eyes of god, eyes of saints, eyes of people... The characters are always being watched.
There are even eyes inside eyes if you look closely:
_____________________________________________
My favorite thing about Ivan the Terrible is that each scene (and nearly every shot) is constructed like a
meaningful, symbolic picture: Eisenstein called cinema "the highest stage of painting". Expressionist lighting effects contribute to the shot's painterly
appearance, facial features are distorted, perspective laws are broken.
Disproportionate objects convey not reality but perception. The story is
mostly told by means of almost static, yet extremely expressive scenes -
like in manga, where what is drawn and how it's drawn are of equal
importance. Ivan the Terrible would have made a great manga - just redraw the shots from the
movie and add dialog bubbles. Really, if
you screencap the entire film, nearly every image you get will be a visual masterpiece, a work of
art by itself.
___________________________________________
During the course of the story, Ivan goes through a metamorphosis: young
enthusiastic ruler, husband, warrior, politician, widower, hermit,
tyrant, madman, visionary, devil... By the end of the film, the actor's
(Nikolai Cherkasov) makeup bears a striking resemblance to that of Mephistopheles in
Gounod's classic opera Faust.
___________________________________________
Each scene is full of symbols: disproportionate shadows on the walls, a throne that is too high for the child-tsar, a huge book "swallowing" Ivan’s face during anointing, Vladimir stretching his hand to a crown on a black swan's head yet failing to reach it...
Each scene is full of symbols: disproportionate shadows on the walls, a throne that is too high for the child-tsar, a huge book "swallowing" Ivan’s face during anointing, Vladimir stretching his hand to a crown on a black swan's head yet failing to reach it...
During Ivan’s illness his cousin, childish and feeble-minded Vladimir,
is seen toying with a fly he caught - a metaphor for indifferent fate
toying with people’s lives. Or, perhaps, a hint that the tsar is faking
his illness to expose the disloyal boyars.
These three European ambassadors are blatant caricatures (which is especially noticeable because all other Europeans in the film look more "realistic"). However, their image should convey not historicity, but an emotion, impression: the Europeans look with disdain at "barbaric" Muscovy, and that's how the Muscovites see them in return, with their strange customs (like shaving) and odd impractical clothes:
_____________________________________________
Chess pieces on the board, black and white world of European
intrigues and political games. After fleeing Russia, Andrei Kurbsky
turns himself into yet another piece on this board:
This is a generalized, symbolic image of Europe, and the throne room
is deliberately constructed like a theatrical decoration. Polish
king Sigismund II Augustus looks more like effeminate Henry III of France. The group of ladies resembles dowager queen Catherine de' Medici with her female retinue.
The chess motif as a symbol of European politics appears also when Ivan instructs his ambassador before sending him to England: he should present a set of chess pieces to queen Elizabeth I.
_____________________________________________
The chess motif as a symbol of European politics appears also when Ivan instructs his ambassador before sending him to England: he should present a set of chess pieces to queen Elizabeth I.
The cup with the poisoned drink is poignantly decorated with a relief
of Sirin - a mythological creature of Russian legends. A heavenly bird,
Sirin sings to the saints in paradise. For mortals, however, she is
dangerous: those who hear her song will forget everything on earth,
follow her, and ultimately die.
Sirin as the harbinger of death appears again, this time on a mural,
when Vladimir, dressed in the tsar’s garments, is being herded by the
Oprichniki to the church, where the assassin is waiting:
_____________________________________________
This icon of Basil Fool for Christ appears during Ivan's anointing:
Basil,
holy fool for Christ, or yurodivy, died in 1552 and was canonized during the later years of Ivan IV’s
reign, in 1580, so his icons couldn’t have existed yet. But the
reminder of this saint sheds more light on Ivan's personality:
historically, Ivan IV greatly respected Basil for always telling the
truth despite ranks and status, even rebuking the tsar himself.
Apparently, the "holy fool for Christ" tradition had a special meaning
for the tsar: Ivan IV used the alias "Parthenius Yurodivy" for
some of his literary works (such as
the canon (hymn) for Archistrategos Mikhail the Fearsome
Angel).
In the context of Ivan's illness, a naked man standing before god, with nothing separating them, is a metaphor for Ivan's soul ready to depart the mortal realm to face divine judgment. But in the context of the entire film, Saint Basil, a man who refused to own anything, serves as the antithesis of the tsar who seeks to own everything, even people's souls.
The "holy fool for Christ" Nikolai, the instigator of the riot in Part I and the aide of Efrosinia, is probably modeled after Saint Basil: he is naked and weighed down with chains. Although this kind of "attire" was typical for the Russian "holy fool for Christ" tradition:
In the context of Ivan's illness, a naked man standing before god, with nothing separating them, is a metaphor for Ivan's soul ready to depart the mortal realm to face divine judgment. But in the context of the entire film, Saint Basil, a man who refused to own anything, serves as the antithesis of the tsar who seeks to own everything, even people's souls.
The "holy fool for Christ" Nikolai, the instigator of the riot in Part I and the aide of Efrosinia, is probably modeled after Saint Basil: he is naked and weighed down with chains. Although this kind of "attire" was typical for the Russian "holy fool for Christ" tradition:
_____________________________________________
The Christian god and the Orthodox religion aren’t discussed openly but
their presence is always felt. Men are struggling with demons inside their
souls, while on the walls their shadows interact with holy images.
From the very beginning of the film, Ivan usurps the god's authority: he
crowns himself during the coronation. His illness (it's ambiguous, whether
it's real, fake, or exaggerated) is the analog of the death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ. After Ivan's "resurrection," his shadow
becomes ominously huge and disproportionate, as if he has acquired some
evil supernatural powers.
Ivan proclaims that he creates the Oprichniki "as god created man in his own image, so I have created men in mine." Malyuta pledges his life to the tsar using almost the same words as apostle Peter before his three denials (and Ivan immediately catches up to this irony).
Ivan proclaims that he creates the Oprichniki "as god created man in his own image, so I have created men in mine." Malyuta pledges his life to the tsar using almost the same words as apostle Peter before his three denials (and Ivan immediately catches up to this irony).
At the deceased Anastasia's coffin, Alexei Basmanov offers his son ("ersatz Anastasia", in Eisenstein's words), like Abraham offered Isaac. Unlike the
biblical god, Ivan accepts the sacrifice. (In the never finished Part III,
as a reversal of this legend, Ivan would order Fyodor to kill his father -
like god sent Abraham to kill his son. Fyodor complies, true to his
Oprichiniki vow: "Renounce kith and kin, forget father and mother..." However, what seemed to be a cruel test of loyalty turns into Morton's fork: "You killed your own father; how can I trust you now?")
Ivan's brief abdication and staying in Alexandrov castle is a reference to
the Temptation of Christ in the desert. Jesus Christ rejected the worldly
power. Ivan just wants an excuse to rule with absolute power, and he gets
it after the people come begging him to return.
In the Fiery Furnace performance, Ivan is likened to biblical king Nebuchadnezzar who declared himself god.
The Oprichniki feast is a parody of the Last Supper, with Malyuta as Peter, Fyodor as John - the most beloved disciple, and Alexei as Judas - leaving the table early in order to betray later. (Eisenstein compared Fyodor to John, and Alexei to Judas in his notes.)
In the Fiery Furnace performance, Ivan is likened to biblical king Nebuchadnezzar who declared himself god.
The Oprichniki feast is a parody of the Last Supper, with Malyuta as Peter, Fyodor as John - the most beloved disciple, and Alexei as Judas - leaving the table early in order to betray later. (Eisenstein compared Fyodor to John, and Alexei to Judas in his notes.)
Part II finale takes place before a huge mural of the Last Judgment, and
later a sinner (Vladimir's killer, young monk Pyotr Volynets) is seen
scurrying into the jaws of hell:
But it’s Ivan, not god, who performs the judgment and sends this sinner
to hell: Ivan’s giant shadow covers the image of god on the fresco. This
correlates with the personal beliefs of historical Ivan IV: unlike
European monarchs, Russian Orthodox tsars held not only secular but also
religious authority, and Ivan IV, the tsar of the last independent
Orthodox state, was a firm believer in his divine mission, and even called
himself "The Hand of God".
Pyotr's eventual fate resembles the conversion of apostle Paul: in Part
III, after this hellish baptism, Pyotr would have emerged as a devoted
follower of the devil-tsar and torturer Malyuta's right hand.
_____________________________________________
Shadows in the film live their own lives and tell their own, parallel
tale:
The murals on the walls also play an extremely important role and
establish the composition and tone of many scenes.
The throne room is dominated by the huge mural of the Wrathful Angel (Archangel Michael) trampling the Universe under his feet. The mural is so big it can't even fit into a single shot, and Eisenstein's drawings are the only way to see what it's supposed to look like:
The throne room is dominated by the huge mural of the Wrathful Angel (Archangel Michael) trampling the Universe under his feet. The mural is so big it can't even fit into a single shot, and Eisenstein's drawings are the only way to see what it's supposed to look like:
During Anastasia's memorial service her murderer Efrosinia stops near a
fresco with a sinner cast into hellfire:
Ruthless bishop Pimen with his skull-like face is associated with the
Grim Reaper:
In Ivan the Terrible walls have not only ears, but eyes as well - sometimes even too many. Eyes of god, eyes of saints, eyes of people... The characters are always being watched.
There are even eyes inside eyes if you look closely:
The eyes on the walls are the eyes of god. Since Ivan seeks to usurp the
god's place, Malyuta serves as Ivan's ever-watching eye, always looking
for any signs of treason:
As the story progresses, the faces on the walls seem more and more
disturbing, bizarre and phantasmagorical.
This parade of crazy visages culminates in Fyodor’s mask, with it’s
distorted, asymmetrical features - the face of madness. In contrast with
icons and frescoes, the mask is eyeless. Its
unsettling appearance wouldn't feel out of place in a horror game or movie
(hello, BioShock I with creepy splicers' masks).
_____________________________________________
Even though Part III wasn't finished (and what had been filmed was
destroyed), Parts I and II still form a rounded, coherent narrative, with a
lot of parallel scenes. Part I features a victorious war with enemies
outside the country's borders. Part II is about dealing with enemies within:
within the country, within the family - and about demons lurking in every
human soul.
Part I places Ivan upon a pedestal. Part II presents a brutal
deconstruction
of everything built up in Part I. The leitmotif of Part II is an inversion, masquerade, chaotic carnival: mock wedding feast, mock
coronation, mock tsar... According to
M. Bachtin,
carnival is a reversal ritual, in which social roles are reversed and
norms about desired behavior are suspended.
Part I begins in the cathedral, with a close-up shot of the crown. By the end of Part II, we see the same crown in the same cathedral, now cradled by a grieving mother. Joyous, smiling, brightly dressed people in the beginning - and the silent, ominous Oprichniki with their faces hidden under black cowls in the end. Two mothers, fighting for the sake of their children - Anastasia and Efrosinia...
Part I begins in the cathedral, with a close-up shot of the crown. By the end of Part II, we see the same crown in the same cathedral, now cradled by a grieving mother. Joyous, smiling, brightly dressed people in the beginning - and the silent, ominous Oprichniki with their faces hidden under black cowls in the end. Two mothers, fighting for the sake of their children - Anastasia and Efrosinia...
Both parts include the coronation scenes:
Both parts feature a murder: Anastasia and Vladimir. In both cases the
victim is inadvertently killed by the one who loves them the most: Ivan
gives poison to Anastasia, Vladimir is stabbed by the assassin sent by his
mother.
Initially, I wrote here that "both parts feature a murder of an innocent", but there are no truly innocent people in the world of Ivan the Terrible, no black and white, only shades of grey. The characters are not cardboard cutouts, but humans, with their own shortcomings:
Vladimir's sole driving force is sloth. He doesn't sin much not due to his inherent goodness but because sinning is too much of a bother. Vladimir is against sending Pyotr as an assassin to Ivan - but only because he can't bear to see his face afterward. Efrosinia consoles him by saying that they'll execute Pyotr - and Vladimir easily agrees with her plan.
Initially, I wrote here that "both parts feature a murder of an innocent", but there are no truly innocent people in the world of Ivan the Terrible, no black and white, only shades of grey. The characters are not cardboard cutouts, but humans, with their own shortcomings:
Anastasia is usually thought of as a purity incarnate and a gentle
soul whose calming presence doesn't let Ivan exert his cruelty -
yet never once do we see her protecting anyone from the tsar's anger.
On the contrary, Anastasia encourages Ivan to deal with the boyar by
heating his anger against them - so much that they believe that
removing her would be enough to change the tsar's politics. During Ivan's illness, Anastasia is not above exploiting Andrei
Kurbsky’s feelings, if it can help to secure
Andrei's loyalty, win over Efrosinia and establish Ivan’s son as the next tsar.
Vladimir's sole driving force is sloth. He doesn't sin much not due to his inherent goodness but because sinning is too much of a bother. Vladimir is against sending Pyotr as an assassin to Ivan - but only because he can't bear to see his face afterward. Efrosinia consoles him by saying that they'll execute Pyotr - and Vladimir easily agrees with her plan.
Anastasia smiles at white swans in Part I - Vladimir reacts to black swans
with the same childish amusement:
Both parts include the banquet scenes: the marriage celebration in Part I,
the Oprichniki feast in Part II. White swans with silver crowns vs black
swans with golden crowns, the festive hymn for the newlywed vs Fyodor's
song about murder. The lyrics of these songs echo each other: "Open the gates, greet the newlywed..." vs "Hack the gates with axes, chop the boyars' heads off..."
Fyodor sings about breaking into a boyar mansion, slaughtering everyone, taking valuables, and burning down the place. The film doesn't include any gruesome scenes of bloodshed or torture, but this song is enough to demonstrate how trivial the violence is for the Oprichniki: mass murder is treated as a casual and amusing activity.
During the wedding feast, Anastasia wears pearl temple pendants. In Part II these pendants are tellingly attached to Fyodor’s mask, hinting at him replacing Anastasia: holy union blessed by church vs unholy, "unnatural" union with Fyodor.
However, it's Vladimir who takes the bride's place at the feast in Part
II. Both Alexei and Fyodor are shown jealous of the attention Vladimir
receives:
Alexei's outburst sets the ground for the future conflict in Part III and foreshadows Alexei's downfall: he doesn't understand Ivan as well as Malyuta does, and he isn't as trusted as Fyodor. Alexei attempts to impose his will on the tsar, just as the boyars did; he wants more power for himself.
Fyodor's jealousy is triggered by Ivan's words "No one loves me...". He stops dancing and removes the mask, and Ivan has to reassure him with a glance.
Alexei's outburst sets the ground for the future conflict in Part III and foreshadows Alexei's downfall: he doesn't understand Ivan as well as Malyuta does, and he isn't as trusted as Fyodor. Alexei attempts to impose his will on the tsar, just as the boyars did; he wants more power for himself.
Fyodor's jealousy is triggered by Ivan's words "No one loves me...". He stops dancing and removes the mask, and Ivan has to reassure him with a glance.
The tsar and his accomplices display almost supernatural understanding,
akin to a hive mind: after Fyodor spots the assassin, Ivan immediately
realizes what’s going on, and he doesn't need any words or gestures to
give Malyuta the order to act. This whole sequence is eerily played as
if they are communicating by means of telepathy.
The Oprichinki feast is filmed in color. The high-contrast red lighting
makes this scene surreal as if the action takes place in hell. It is
during this episode that Ivan wholly assumes the role of the devil, displaying the almost supernatural ability to manipulate his followers and enemies alike.
The feast reminds of a witches' sabbath, a devilish hallucination. This
impression is strengthened when the colorful sequence is interrupted by a
brief black-and-white scene with Pyotr waiting inside the church: as if
Vladimir for a moment has managed to shake off the hypnosis or to awaken
from a nightmare.
The Oprichniki in the finale represents the realm Ivan is building: dark,
voiceless, faceless, featureless:
At the same time, this scene also shows Ivan’s loneliness, the absolute
solitude of an autocratic ruler. There are no people anymore near Ivan since
the Oprichniki are nothing but the tsar’s shadows. Instead of feeling
safe, Ivan only sinks deeper into despairing isolation.
_____________________________________________
There are also Swan Lake allusions: white swans on the
wedding feast vs black swans on the Oprichniki's feast, Anastasia in white
("white swan" - a traditional Russian metaphor for a beautiful woman) is
replaced by Fyodor in black - like Odette and her twin/double Odile.
Odile's ecstatic pas de deux - and Fyodor's fiery dance, both with many repeated rotations. The
tsar himself - an imposing bird of prey, like evil sorcerer Rothbart who
is traditionally portrayed as a hawk/vulture in Russian ballet.
_____________________________________________
Anastasia and Fyodor are very similar to each other. Both are so very much
in love with Ivan. Both are utterly, fanatically devoted, both
self-identify as the tsar’s loyal slaves, both encourage Ivan to follow
through with his plans till the end.
For Anastasia her love for Ivan is an uplifting force: compare her dull,
unemotional face, her heavy, restrictive garments when we see her as a maiden during the coronation - and then her expressive face, comfortable
and more simple clothes which don't restrict her movements, after she
becomes Ivan's wife:
For Fyodor, after his father shows him the tsar on the battlefied,
it is clearly the love at first sight:
Anastasia's death ends the virtuous dawn of Ivan’s reign. Fyodor
accompanies Ivan during his "start of darkness" and descent into
madness. Anastasia is associated with Ivan's good side. However,
Fyodor's personality in the beginning is equally innocent and honest.
Both Anastasia and Fyodor in Part I are looking at Ivan with such
rapture and exaltation as angels look at god in heaven.
This angelic purity is a stark contrast to Fyodor in Part II: ever since
his first appearance on screen it's evident that he is now a fallen angel,
being one of the leaders of the tsar's terror squad, the murderous
Oprichniki. The exaltation in Fyodor's eyes changes to a dark vengeful
obsession.
Part II's Fyodor exhibits scary, outright demonic features:
Interestingly, it's Fyodor who demands to avenge his predecessor
Anastasia. Logically, Fyodor couldn't have learned about poisoning.
However, according to Slavic beliefs, evil demons arise out of the
souls of those who died tragic and premature deaths. In the scene in
Anastasia's room Fyodor behaves as if he is possessed by the vengeful
spirit of the murdered woman, - or, perhaps, just displays demonic
omniscience.
Fyodor's sensual performance in female dress, when he is singing about
murder and pillage while the other Oprichniki are borderline groping, and
then undress him, is the one of most memorable and unsettling episodes of
Part II. The true nature of the Oprichnina has nothing to do with the monastic
orders they seek to emulate.
Despite the Angel-Demon symbolism tied to Anastasia and Fyodor,
Ivan the Terrible completely averts the traditional "Good Angel, Bad Angel" dynamics:
it’s not as if Ivan were good because his kindhearted wife’s influence
tempered his cruelty, and it’s not like after she died Fyodor somehow
corrupted Ivan and turned him into a monster.
On the contrary, both Anastasia and Fyodor don’t influence
Ivan. They don’t absolve him of any responsibilities for his
actions. At most, they only boost the tsar's confidence: Anastasia encourages Ivan
to be firm in subjugating the boyar; later, during Anastasia's memorial
service, Fyodor is the only one who supports Ivan in his plan to
abdicate and leave the capital.
Anastasia and Fyodor are not some mutually exclusive forces that fight over Ivan and tear him apart between darkness and light. Both love Ivan with the absolutely unquestioning, uncritical kind of love: he goes, they follow. That's why, like satellites, they only reflect the state of Ivan’s soul: Anastasia - optimistic determination, Fyodor - sadistic wickedness. Fyodor's transformation represents Ivan's path from a bright progressive ruler to a devilish tormentor and shows the destructive, toxic influence which is spreading around the tsar's persona.
Anastasia and Fyodor are not some mutually exclusive forces that fight over Ivan and tear him apart between darkness and light. Both love Ivan with the absolutely unquestioning, uncritical kind of love: he goes, they follow. That's why, like satellites, they only reflect the state of Ivan’s soul: Anastasia - optimistic determination, Fyodor - sadistic wickedness. Fyodor's transformation represents Ivan's path from a bright progressive ruler to a devilish tormentor and shows the destructive, toxic influence which is spreading around the tsar's persona.
Eventually, Ivan brings ruin to both of them: he gives the poison to
Anastasia, he causes Fyodor’s death in the unfinished Part III.
Conclusion
In Ivan the Terrible, Eisenstein crafts a powerful cinematic tapestry that blends historical elements with symbolic storytelling, theatrical performances, and haunting visual metaphors. The film transcends its period setting to explore deeper themes of power, faith, and the human condition, using characters like Ivan, Anastasia, and Fyodor as reflections of a ruler's inner turmoil. Through stark contrasts, symbolic motifs, and layered performances, Eisenstein's vision challenges traditional notions of good and evil, depicting Ivan's journey from an idealistic ruler to a tyrant trapped in loneliness and madness. Ultimately, the film stands as a rich, complex exploration of the corrupting nature of power and the cyclical violence it engenders.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий