伊凡雷帝

爱森斯坦（Eisenstein，Sergey）在人生的末尾拍出的力作，本是接受斯.大,.林的一项政治任务。

斯.大,.林想让他拍一部反映沙皇残暴的政治宣教片，但随着爱氏学习的深入，以及1942年片厂搬迁至阿拉木图，他有时间做深刻的反思。

E最终把这部影片拍成了兼有自传性质、领袖传记和解释俄罗斯历史等多重任务的影片，这是斯.大,.林始料不及的。西方也把这部作品当成描写极权的分析样本。👑

这部电影里有两个核心词汇：boyar和oprichniki，前者是沙皇时代的特权贵族，有人说就是杜马；后者可译为特辖军，是一只特务武装。

先着重谈后者，他们戴黑帽、着黑衣、骑乘黑马🕋，专司侦查可能的反叛，他们可以不经审判就处刑、放逐、处决嫌犯(特别是针对贵族)。属于一种保卫皇室的禁卫集团，类似于中国的东厂西厂。这样一只特务骑兵初仅有1000人，后逐渐扩编到6000人。特辖军在伊凡四世的指挥下，血腥地镇压了诺夫哥罗德的"叛乱"，并肃清了所有的boyar。平时他们欺压良善、扰民、制造冤狱，这也成就了伊凡四世的「恐怖」之名。 整个两部《伊凡雷帝》可以简单概括成从倚重boyar到倚重oprichniki，建立恐怖的特辖统治的过程。集权可以用来肃清异议分子，造成前所未有的高效率，俄罗斯得到了前所未有的强盛和广大领土，而众多的boyar，乃至沙皇身边的亲族，却遭到了血腥的镇压。这种发生在16世纪的矛盾性与斯.大,.林时代并没有本质的区别。沙皇与“沙皇”是必要的邪恶。 爱森斯坦赋予此片以心理深度，这远远超出了斯.大,.林心中简单刻板的暴君形象的预期。Sergey在第二部的开头插播了一段伊凡的童年，说的是boyars毒死了他的妈妈，并一手遮天地干政，甫成少年的伊凡下令逮捕他们。这是日后成为恐怖伊凡所有行为的心理范型。自小失怙，心中充满孤独，渴望权力带给他的安全感，并不惜牺牲自己最亲近的人，做事充满冒险性，容不得异见。Sergey、Joseph和Ivan都有类似的心理型。

电影参考的历史肖像

对于谢尔盖来说，世界上哪里有什么人民艺术家，只有沙皇的爪牙而已。

所以全世界所有演员端起舞台腔来都自带中二调调嘛，全程“表情包”，你们都还记得自己在演“高大全”（好吧其实也不那么“全”）帝王传记，而不是喜剧嘛哈哈哈哈。虽说有来自审查和zz的压力，但老实说爱森斯坦也不是没接过ZZ任务片啊，人家成名作《罢工》和《波特金号》哪个不是带着任务拍得啊，可人家拍得就是扣人心弦、内涵深邃，为啥两部伊凡雷帝就这么“沉闷”又神神叨叨的呢。别跟我说斯同志就抓着这两部而不看别的啊。

而且我看DB转载的那篇苏联档案讲斯同志评价剧组的文章，其实抛开私心和“歌功颂德”，斯同志的评价还是比较中肯的，比如宗教仪式过多拖沓、有些细节不符合史实等等。他提到的把伊凡往“民族英雄”、抵抗外来侵略势力的塑造也是有理由的，联系当时的国际社会大环境和苏联本身的现实情况，这么拍也会让当时的广大人民更有代入感。毕竟光拍宫廷阴谋斗争，那离群众也太远了，何况就不久前人家才把皇室给那啥……

其实我觉得本片更像爱森斯坦试图朝莎士比亚四大悲剧靠拢的一个尝试。《麦克白》的神秘主义气息，《哈姆雷特》的贵族斗争，《奥赛罗》的猜忌背叛，《李尔王》的命运悲剧，就连那股拿腔拿调的戏剧表演风格也非常莎剧……导演似乎只是学了个皮，本质还是个实验舞台戏剧，但碍于外部的压力或者说期待吧，也不敢过于随心所欲。到最后感觉不上不小的，既不算那种内核红色shzy的帝王将相宣传片，也没达到莎翁对角色的深度挖掘。就拿导演本人的作品来比，我也更喜欢罢工和波特金号，大场面调度也是后两部作品更加气势磅礴啊。只能说光影取景、镜头构图是一流水平。哦，还有那华丽丽的服设布景。真就是连黑白色彩都挡不住的金碧辉煌、繁复精致啊。

超多的面部特写，高颜值的演员，镶金嵌宝的服装，气势恢宏的音乐，外景镜头非常考究。演伊凡的演员摆POSE的技能逆天了，笑点是俄罗斯的宫殿门象狗洞，人人得以弯腰侧身通过，直到最后皇婶策划教堂行刺时我才发现皇帝的这个亲属是女的。

日丹诺夫说爱森斯坦把伊凡雷帝塑造了一个神经衰弱的人。而斯大林认为：伊凡雷帝是一个极其残酷的人，表现他的残酷是可以的。但应当说明为什么要残酷。伊凡雷帝的一个错误就是没有彻底铲除五大封建家族。如果他消灭了这五大家族，那就根本不会出现混乱时期了。而伊凡雷帝不管是处死谁，过后总是后悔不已，忏悔个没完。在这方面妨碍他的是上帝。应当更果断一些。

斯大林说：你们把沙皇演成了一个优柔寡断的人，就像是哈姆雷特。总是别人告诉他应当做什么。而不是他自己作出决定。 沙皇伊凡是一个伟大而英明的统治者，如果把他同路易十一作比较（你们读过有关路易十一为路易十四奠定专制制度基础的书吗？），那么伊凡雷帝同路易简直不可同日而语。伊凡雷帝的英明之处在于，他始终站在民族的立场上，不允许外国人进入自己的国家，从而防止了外来影响向国内渗透。

Eisenstein’s two-part historical biopic of Ivan IV of Russia (1530-1584), it is his swan song, commissioned by none other than Joseph Stalin himself. Intended as a trilogy, the project’s third installment was scrapped after Part II enraged Stalin (why? the behind-the-scene stories are destined to be more appealing than the actual films) and was subsequently banned, which only came out of the woodwork in 1958, 10 years after Eisenstein’s death, and 5 years after Stalin’s.

Viewed today, this two features are testaments to Eisenstein’s absolute geniuses in filmmaking, shot when the Soviet Union took a heavy toll of WWII, he must contend with limited funds and resources to map out such a juggernaut of an enterprise. You can call the eventual fruit ahistorical or irreverent, but not unimpressive, and we can see on the screen where Eisentein splashes out, it is not in the battlefield action, or exterior settings (both are condensed to a minimum, and Part II is essentially a chamber piece, which never ventures into the open), but in the fineries and decors on display, those lavishing costumes (head gears, silk robes, ruffs galore!) are kaleidoscopic with their intricate designs and characteristic patterns, in Part II, when primitive colorization is applied to the revelry sequences, you are able to gape at the fabric’s original texture and chroma, in a word, you must trust a gay man’s dress sense, that is a given.

Technically, Eisenstein is a maestro of shadow play, which is amazingly deployed to parallel the power shifting between Ivan, the founder of Tsardom of Muscovy, who unites the country and the discontent Russian boyars, their schism lies in whether power should be autocratic or shared by those selected few. Ivan’s strongest ally is the masses, and his anti-clerical disposition is emphatically validated by the Eastern Orthodox Church’s callousness. It is not difficult to understand why Stalin personally identified himself with Ivan the ruler.

Also facial expressions has never been so vividly recorded like this, Eisenstein’s close-ups are highly theatrical under the lighting’s manipulation, and sometimes, bolstered by dramatically contrasted compositions. Those faces are mannered but expressive, to register one single emotion (frowning, glowering, darting, staring) at a time. Their purposefulness conveys a heaviness as if those characters are driven by monomania, the expressions don’t belong to real humans, but tableaux vivants heightened in emotionality, to ram their significations down our throats. All I can say is, it is an approach of expression, one man’s meat can be another man’s poison though.

Performance-wise, the cast is superb, despite their method is obsolete. An aquiline Nikolay Cherkasov reigns over the titular role with both flair and variation, his Ivan isn’t defined merely by “terrible”, if you get the preconception that Ivan is a despot, which the films certainly do not concur with, Ivan is an orphan with a grudge, he is ruthless, nearly paranoid, but before that, he has also been consumed by loneliness, betrayal and bereavement (the allegiance test when he is apparently in extremis is a high point in Part I), Cherkasov downplays Ivan’s menace, but highlights his self-importance and grandstanding comportment, and on a minor note of the heavy makeup, how funny his mustache seems to grow out of his nostrils.

Among the secondary players, Lyudmila Tselikovskaya is a beatific Tsarina Anastasia in Part I; Mikhail Zharov, as Malyuta Skuratov, Ivan’s foe-to-friend crony, is remarkable for his canine wiles, especially in Part II; and Mikhail Nazvanov makes Prince Andrew Kurbsky a contradiction of wills and desires, he can look stupid but act not so, or otherwise, there is glint in his eyes, which can be easily lost with all the bloviating, orating and speechifying. Then, a dazed, namby-pamby Pavel Kadochnikov makes Vladimir of Staritsa (Ivan’s cousin) a competent fool, the prototype of a mommy’s boy, but surprisingly, free of mockery, when he is struck down, you just feel sorry for him, accursed by his blue blood. Lastly, as Vladimir’s mother and Ivan’s aunt, Efrosinia of Staritsa, the arch-villain, Serafima Birman is terrific in both films, her saturnine venom is spilt all over the screen, but when she chants, it is also weirdly affecting, almost facetious, yes, credit also should be accorded to Prokofiev’s grand, emotive score, it helps to hold the whole nine yard together, and cues you to adjust the gravity quotient, aka. how serious the matter you are watching means to be.

While both films are equally eloquent and uniformly reflect Eisenstein’s mastery, Part II has a slight edge with the colored segments that grant you a taste of what he can do with colors, and it is mad as hell, oversaturated and kinetic, as if you were spelunking in the hellmouth, these two films are revelations, even if you are not particularly into that aforementioned approach, Eisenstein is always a veritable force to be reckoned with.

referential entries: Eisenstein’s BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN (1925, 8.4/10); Laurence Olivier’s HAMLET (1948, 8.3/10); Mikhail Kalatozov’s THE CRANES ARE FLYING (1957, 8.6/10).

English Title: Ivan the Terrible, Part I

Original Title: Ivan Groznyy

Year: 1944

Country: Soviet Union

Language: Russian

Genre: Biography, Drama, History

Director/Screenwriter/Editing: Sergei M. Eisenstein

Music: Sergei Prokofiev

Cinematography: Andrey Moskvin, Eduard Tisse

Cast:

Nikolay Cherkasov

Lyudmila Tselikovskaya

Serafima Birman

Mikhail Nazvanov

Mikhail Zharov

Amvrosi Buchma

Mikhail Kuznetsov

Pavel Kadochnikov

Andrei Abrikosov

Aleksandr Mgebrov

Rating: 8.1/10

English Title: Ivan the Terrible, Part II

Original Title: Ivan Groznyy. Skaz vtoroy: Boyarskiy zagovor

Year: 1958

Country: Soviet Union

Language: Russian

Genre: Biography, History

Director/Screenwriter: Sergei M. Eisenstein

Music: Sergei Prokofiev

Cinematography: Andrey Moskvin, Eduard Tisse

Editing: Esfir Tobak

Cast:

Nikolay Cherkasov

Serafima Birman

Pavel Kadochnikov

Mikhail Zharov

Amvrosi Buchma

Mikhail Kuznetsov

Andrei Abrikosov

Aleksandr Mgebrov

Mikhail Nazvanov

Vladimir Balashov

Vsevolod Pudovkin

Pavel Massalsky

Ada Vojtsik

Rating: 8.2/10