Ivan the Terrible, Part I (1944) User Reviews

The film itself was a work of indisputable genius, its every frame a combination of the architectonic and the purely theatrical...

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 9/10 · 10 August 2005]

Reportedly filmed it Stalin's personal suggestion, Part I glorified the 16th century prince who overcame the power of Russia's feudal lords and the treachery of his own friends and family to forge the Russian nation… Although Ivan resorted to cruel and often repugnant means to achieve his goals, the end results, at least in Eisenstein's eyes, made the means acceptable…

Condemned by some critics as unbearably slow and ponderous, Part I of "Ivan the Terrible" is regarded by others as a towering work of genius... It is easy to understand why Stalin, one of the most ruthless of leaders, approved the first half of the epic; it is equally easy to see why Part II, completed in 1946, was banned by an irate government…

Far less effective than Part I, it shows Peter becoming increasingly insane, overwhelmed by hate, bitterness, and doubt as to the legitimacy of his mission… Eisenstein suffered a heart attack on the day he completed editing the film, and he died in 1948… For a decade thereafter his completed masterwork remained under official proscription; it received its first screening in 1958, five years after Stalin's death

Perfect propaganda parallels

[Spondonman · 9/10 · 18 March 2007]

I've seen this a number of times now so it's difficult for me to remember having trouble getting into the stylised form of acting and by 1944 dated expressionistic cinematography that other viewers might have. First time of watching it was on UK TV over 20 years ago with Part 2 and a documentary called Part 3 containing the remaining extant scenes, and I loved it. I'm dead against arty farty pretentious movies and am always aware that being obscure does not automatically make a film a classic, but this really is a classic of its kind. It was Eisenstein's best work (imho) a rallying call to all of the disparate inhabitants of Mother Russia to work and fight together, which was ordered by Stalin and who was pleased with the similarities – I bet he was on tenterhooks waiting for Ivan to go insane though.

Ivan is crowned Tsar of all the Russias and proceeds to drag the country into the 16th century, disposing of external enemies in the form of Tartars, starting a long war against Livonia and limiting the influence of the antagonistic aristocracy, the boyars. The acting is intensely melodramatic, with endless sinister sidelong glances taken from acute camera angles and Ivan's pointy beard shown to good advantage, which to people not paying much attention can probably be mirth-inducing. But this was pulse-quickening propaganda for the new Russian working class to comprehend, not Artheads decades later - Eisenstein did it so memorably that like Potemkin it's still spellbinding today. Otoh he borrowed extensively from Snow White too for some of most incredible shadowy images in here, and his whole technique hadn't moved on from silent film. The use of the b&w nitrate film, costumes, sets and angular ugly faces are wondrous to behold and Prokofiev's stirring music glues it all together triumphantly.

All in all, a knockout film with faults but which still defies and will survive all criticism.

"If he is strong enough, all will recognise him"

[Steffi_P · 8/10 · 11 January 2007]

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.

My God, I wasn't expecting it to be THAT good

[zetes · 10/10 · 27 April 2001]

Before I new much about him, when I used to see the box for Alexander Nevsky on the Foreign shelf at my local video store, I always misread Eisenstein's name, transforming it into Einstein. Well, Einstein suits him just as well, for what Albert Einstein was to science Sergei Eisenstein is to the cinema. Witness Battleship Potemkin, possibly the most rousing film ever made. Today, nearly 80 years after it was made, it still has the power to inspire revolution. Its amazing montage editing style may have died with silent cinema (although there are at least two directors today who are somewhat similar: Shinya Tsukamoto and Darren Aranofsky), but it will never be forgotten.

When Eisenstein moved to sound, he realized that rapid montage would not work in the new medium. He adapted his style, perfecting a new one. Alexander Nevsky and the two Ivan the Terrible films come off to many people as stale historical epics. To me, they come off as the very peak of that genre. Usually I do find historical epics stuffy, but the direction, acting, writing, cinematography, and music of these three films are exquisite, so far beyond anything that I've ever seen that these films stir me nearly as much as Potemkin does.

Ivan the Terrible I is a bit confusing in its plot to begin with, but you have to stick with it. First off, there are many, many characters. A great many are not mentioned by name, and most of the rest are only named on rare occasions. But Eisenstein familiarizes us with the characters' faces. These faces are perfectly chosen and lighted spectacularly. The light is so harsh that every crag in a person's face is clear, and noses cast foreboding shadows. The way time progresses in this film is without much warning, and one problem I encountered was identifying Ivan himself. I did not catch on at first when the first sequence ended and the second sequence began, and Ivan, in the second sequence, has a beard. Once you realize that, though, you're home free. That beard serves as a great identifier throughout the film (and is used in many ways by Eisenstein).

I was expecting to like this film, but I found myself obsessed with this utter masterpiece. 10/10

Stalinist Shakespeare

[flasuss · 24 July 2005]

If Alexander Nevsky was a filmed opera, this one, the first part of Eisenstein's incomplete trilogy about the title character, looks more like a Stalinist version of a Shakespere play, with a lot of conspiracy and characters so desirous for power that are willing to do whatever it takes, but manichaeist and with almost undisguised propaganda of the infamous Russian dictator. Exactly for being theatrical, it is too formal, but it is so intense that it is impossible to be indifferent, the visual composition is extraordinary, using very well the light-and-shade game typical of the German Expressionism, the alternation between very open shots and close ups, and very rich costumes and set decoration. In the end, although it is not perfect, is a remarkable film that deserves all the praise it received.

Ivan the Terrible -- Pure Genius, but not light watching

[DragonaFireis333 · 10/10 · 10 September 2005]

Ivan the Terrible, Parts One and Two are films when combined) are in the top ten films of all time, and are of enormous genius, but because of this are not easy to digest. The story of the tortured Ivan the Terrible, first Czar of Russia, from boyhood to near the end of his czarhood, it was filmed with extravagated acting, and each scene having multiple symbolic interpretations. For example, all the main characters or groups of characters are portrayed with the characteristics of animals, Ivan the Terrible being a bird. The cinematography is brilliant, and strangely beautiful, relying on parallels, and close ups of the characters (this is among the first films to have this technique, now one of the most common cinematography techniques). Because this film is such a classic, it will make watchers review it, and think on the film itself. As such, it is not "light" watching. It is most definitely one of the greatest films of all time, and is worth the time without question. Do not be held back by the black and white or that it is in Russian. Also, watch both Part One, and Part Two, they were meant to work off each other. The DVD contains what remains of the incomplete Part Three, which the director Sergei Ensenstein did not finish. When told by phone that Stalin would not allow for Part Two to be distributed in Russia and be vaulted due to it's anti-Communistic implications, Ensenstien hung up the phone, and promptly died by heart attack, leaving a trilogy without its ending.

Eisenstein's Baby

[OttoVonB · 9/10 · 9 October 2002]

On a backdrop of intrigue, murder and betrayal, Prince Ivan conquers enemies and becomes the first Czar of all Russia, at the cost of his own soul.

Eisenstein's name and reputation loom over film history in such a forbidding way that you would be forgiven for deeming his work impenetrable by modern standards, yet while his silent epics are so seminal as to be hard to evaluate objectively, his late talking films can be hugely rewarding viewing, even to more casual film-goers. As a summation of his artistic evolution and scholarship, they are no less treasurable or significant than Battleship Potemkin, yet they have a more compelling story to tell.

Ivan The Terrible was to be a trilogy, of which only parts 1 and 2 were completed before their creator fell into disfavor with Stalin. Yet parts 1 and 2 are rich enough that together they form a perfect story ending on a chilling note. On to part 1 then...

Part 1 tells the story of Prince Ivan from young hopeful to warlord and recluse, before he truly accepts his calling. It is an incredibly romanticized tale, and formally, a relic of a time long gone, one that perhaps only ever existed in Eisenstein's mind. His was a unique visual sensibility and the Ivan films are full of layered, meticulously composed and designed shots: characters scurry like rodents through claustrophobic tunnels, the look is at times so expressionistic as to evoke where The Cabinet of Dr Caligari might have evolved. It is both familiar and horribly alien, like the nightmare it later confirms itself as in part 2.

Given the conflicting emotions evoked - heroism with oppression, epic scale but suffocating formalism - you would do well to brace yourself through this one and remember that only once you've seen both parts will it all make terrible sense. Only then will you appreciate the unique genius at work here.

One cannot distinguish between the two Ivans for one cannot exist without the other, and together, they form one of the best films ever made.

Judging the "propaganda" in this film

[fbmorinigo · 10/10 · 17 July 2009]

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.

Eisenstein lags behind

[trippycheez · 7/10 · 20 May 2005]

Perhaps if I had not watched von Sternberg's SCARLET EMPRESS the day before I watched IVAN THE TERRIBLE, I would have appreciated Eisenstein's film more.

SCARLET EMPRESS is von Sternberg's own historical Russian epic: Catherine the Great (played by Marlene Deitrich) rises to power despite conspiracies against her--conspiracies much like the ones that face Ivan in Eisenstein's film. The films are remarkably similar, and Eisenstein's influence on von Sternberg's lighting and montage sequences could not be more apparent.

Unfortunately, IVAN THE TERRIBLE is light years behind SCARLET EMPRESS in terms of the integration of sound with image, humanistic characterizations, and nuanced (as opposed to exaggeratedly theatrical) acting styles. If I had to guess, I'd say IVAN THE TERRIBLE was made ten years before SCARLET EMPRESS. In fact, it was made ten years after.

I'm a big fan of Eisenstein's BATTLESHIP POTEMPKIN, and as a student of Russian history and culture, I expected IVAN THE TERRIBLE to be a thoroughly engaging film. Instead it seemed a primitive effort: a move backward for a man who excelled at silent storytelling but couldn't evolve along with cinema. Of course, this IS Eisenstein, and IVAN is a very intelligent and well-crafted film, but viewed alongside its contemporaries, its shortcomings become all too apparent.

This is a masterpiece outlasting history

[Dr_Coulardeau · 10/10 · 15 November 2009]

This double film is a masterpiece in many ways. It took two years of research before starting to come out of thin air and being filmed. The first part came out in 1944 and the second part in 1945. This means the research was done when the USSR was down under the feet of the Nazis. The first part came out when the tide had turned and the Russians were already advancing in Poland. The second part came out after the fall of Berlin or close before. The political meaning at the time was clear. The first part was singing the praise of the man who unified Russia, just like it was necessary in the war years to reunify the USSR for the last push to Berlin. The second part is slightly different since it was the time when Ivan the Terrible had to face the plots and conspiracy from the Boyars, the nobles and the top echelon church people and he had to defeat them with wise schemes more than just plain violence. That was of course essential after the war to face the various groups of people who could have spoken out of unity now the outside danger was eliminated. But we have to go beyond this immediate and historical value of the film when it was shot. It is a masterpiece because Eisenstein uses rather simple means to produce an epic film whose every scene is poignant, powerful, impressive, etc. Eisenstein uses all the possibilities his know-how and experience provide him with. Of course he uses black and white to play on shade, shadows and contrast so that some scenes are frightening and quite in the line of the big masters of horror of the late 20s, Fritz Lang or Murnau. He uses the body language and the composition of the scenes and setting to make every single square centimeter meaningful and active. The hands, the faces, the bodies are among the best actors of the film along with the actors themselves, quite in the line of what Eisenstein was doing in the 20s, but even better because he was able to use their lips in order to make them speak. The soundtrack is prodigious. He composes a real symphony with voices used in the most dramatic and expressive way, with all kinds of sounds and noise that give a real depth to the pictures on the screen and the voices of the actors, and finally the outstanding music score by Prokofiev: probably one of the best film music ever and that music totally avoids the repetitiveness of the music of the old silent films to create a fully developed universe of its own that amplifies the voices and the sounds and noises. That creates the epic atmosphere the story itself needs. What's more, in the second part, the use of color for two reels of the film shows the force of the black and white reels, and at the same time shows how Eisenstein can use the color of these reels in order to create a different but similar contrast, this time centered on red dominating the various other colors that are essentially, white, black and yellow. The red of these reels becomes the expression of life and at the same time of some oppressiveness coming from some danger that red also designates (and surprisingly enough we cannot find any "revolutionary" meaning to that red, but we may be missing some inside meaning in the USSR of the time). The films have been digitally re-mastered but not in any way changed: we still have the jerky pictures of those days and the blurry sound track of before digital sound (even the music that could have been re-recorded). And it is good because we really have the impression to watch an old film from the 50s.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID

Visually stunning...overplayed histrionics but no masterpiece...

[Doylenf · 6/10 · 13 September 2006]

Another one of these "must see" films that art houses used to play to a packed audience of students striving to see and ponder what has become known throughout the film world as a "masterpiece of its kind". And afterwards, overcome by the techniques mastered in filming this historical opus, they all declare that it is indeed the world's greatest film.

Not so. Sure, the visuals are as stunning as any you will see in a current epic, but the script is a ponderous one that will try the patience of anyone waiting for something to happen. It's full of operatic excesses in the way all the close-ups of wide-eyed hysteria are filmed in a Gothic blend of shadow and light, with the principal actors overplaying their bigger than life emotions as though they were on a stage in a theater of at least 6,000 seats.

Nothing subtle about these portrayals and yet they remain fixed in the mind afterwards, endlessly fascinating in the way these characters are presented on screen. Ivan the Terrible looks more like one's conception of Rasputin with his stringy beard and look of menace that would put Bela Lugosi to shame. He resembles John Barrymore in full make-up.

The settings and costumes are all in keeping with the brooding 16th Century Russian atmosphere and the soundtrack is full of Russian chants to further the mood.

Lacking subtlety due to their silent screen poses and operatic expressions are Nikolai Cherkasov as Czar Ivan IV and Lyudmila Tselikovskaya as Czarina Anastasia Staritskaya. She strongly resembles a cross between Katina Paxinou and Martita Hunt, as the woman who unwittingly sacrifices her son for the throne.

The final scenes leading up to the tragic death of the Czarina's son are beautifully composed and visually compelling to watch, especially those scenes photographed in vivid color (with an accent on blood red), still making use of stark, shadowy images.

But a masterpiece? Not by today's standards. Worth watching? Indeed.

Sure ain't Hollywood!

[Razzbar · 8/10 · 8 April 2000]

What an amazing picture. Some of the wierdest acting I've ever seen, this is definitely NOT a movie for someone who thinks

that modern Hollywood has the lock on filmmaking.

The lighting is harsh, usually from the side and below, so

that many times the nose of an actor shades one of the eyes.

And those eyes! Never have I seen so much use of the eyeball in a movie. Lots of shifting, rolling, wide open eyes, in

closeup full frame face shots. The acting is often robotic,

and there are lots of shots with two actors right face to

face, with synchronized expressions. I also loved the voices, especially Ivan's booming baritone, which is especially

effective coming from a rather thin looking man.

But it all works! I found myself laughing over and over at the bizarre camera, lighting and acting methods employed.

Whether this humor is intentional or not, I don't know or

care. A laugh is a laugh. Which is not to discount the

dramatic effects that came at the same time. It's just

the kind of laughter that comes from the excitement of

seeing such boldness of art.

Alas, the movie suffers from technical problems, which

can be forgiven due to the time and place in which it was made. The sound quality is poor, and the subtitles are

impossible to read at times, although 3/4 of the time I just ignored them. It's pretty easy to tell what's going on.

Again, this film is not for everyone, but it is a must for any serious student of filmmaking. It's a refreshing and education departure from Hollywood's "realism is everything" mentality.

Ivan the Terrible acting

[teutonicknight · 7/10 · 29 May 2004]

Possible spoilers

The problem with this movie is acting, most of all Mr. Cherkasov. There is something wrong with his abilities when all you can remember from the performance are those bulging eyes and strange beard. His wife dies - bulging eyes, he captures Kazan - bulging eyes, he learns about the plot against him - bulging eyes. The rest of the crew does better, but still (as in all Eisenstein's movies) not great.

Eisenstein proves that he was a movie wizard, some of the shots are amazing, the way he uses shades is something exceptional. But I couldn't get rid of a feeling that 'Ivan the Terrible' is ten years behind western masterpieces of that period: 'Citizen Kane', 'Henry V', 'Notorious' not to mention colours in 'Gone with the Wind'.

7/10 (looking forward to the second part)

Sadly overrated and dated for the time period, but highlights the limitations the Eisenstein was subject to

[demadrigal · 5/10 · 15 June 2019]

It's almost immediately obvious that this film suffers because of Stalin's Iron Curtain and the government-mandated style of Socialist Realism. Watching it feels like a film from 1929 rather than one released 4 years after Citizen Kane and 3 years after Casablanca. Eisenstein probably never got a chance to see those films or any of the other films after he was forced to return to the USSR in the early 1930s. The film shows heavy influence from European films of the 1920s. His use of shadows recalls German Expressionism and the extreme closeups of dramatic facial expressions are lifted directly from Dreyer's Passion of Joan of Arc. The cinematography and sound is particularly dated. There is an almost complete absence of any kind of camera movement or zoom shots except for a couple dolly shots at extremely dramatic points. It results in some awkward moments with framing, shot composition, and even scene blocking as the actors have to restrict their movements to stay in frame. Very often it results in the subjects in the shot being oddly off in the corner of a shot. It's unclear whether this is the result of technical limitations or artistic choice but it's very distracting especially for a film from the mid-40s. Likewise, the sound is often limited to the score and voices with ambient sounds like footsteps being left out. This adds to the dated and silent film-like feel of the film as a whole.

Aside from the technical aspects, Socialist Realism constrains the film in terms of character and plot. The mandate to de-emphasize (or eliminate) individuals as characters essentially squashes any hopes for character development and Eisenstein has to lean on fairly blunt forms of symbolism to communicate his character's inner emotional states. The antagonists in particular are one-dimensional caricatures of actual human beings. Although, in an advancement relative to Eisenstein's earliest films like Strike, the characters actually have names. Also, Socialist Realism forces any kind of real nuance or sophistication out of the story. By government mandate, all characters are all good or all evil and the film must eliminate ambiguity and serve to glorify the state and Stalin in particular with the blunt subtlety of a sledgehammer.

Finally, the actors are all clearly more accustomed to theatrical acting rather than cinematic acting. Taken along with all of the factors, this often results in googly-eyed overacting with an unintentionally comic effect.

Ultimately, it's rather tragic considering what a pioneer Eisenstein was in the 20s and how he contributed to film editing in particular. I would have loved to have seen what kind of film Eisenstein would have made if he had the same kind of artistic freedom that directors in other countries had at that same time period.

A Memorable Filming Of An Interesting Era

[Snow Leopard · 12 May 2004]

This first part of Eisenstein's filming of the life and times of "Ivan the Terrible" has lots of drama, very good characterizations, fascinating settings, and plenty of action. Nikolai Cherkasov is completely convincing in the lead role, and the rest of the cast complements him well (especially Serafima Birman as his crafty aunt). This period in history is quite interesting and significant in itself, and Eisenstein presents everything in a fashion that is thoughtful and also enjoyable to watch.

Ivan combined a remorseless personal ambition with a genuine desire to strengthen and protect Russia, while the boyars, who opposed him, acted from motives that were almost exclusively personal. Combined with the plans of Russia's neighbors, all of this makes for a complex and interesting series of events, and the movie does a good job of presenting both the events and the possibilities, both on the surface and behind the scenes. Not the least of the reasons why it works so well are the settings. They are always interesting, believable, and atmospheric - and the indoor settings are especially so.

Part One is praiseworthy both in its own right and as the foundation for the outstanding sequel. Eisenstein generally excelled at depicting important periods in his country's history, and his series on Ivan's critical reign demonstrates all of his many skills. His attention to detail (of which there are too many examples even to try to list) and his appreciation for the overall picture make this a memorable film of high quality.

A powerful experience.

[anton-6 · 10/10 · 13 January 2002]

A film about power,jealousy and humanity.A really detailed chronicle about Czar Ivan IV's life.Eisenstein was one of the greatest director´s ever and this film is so brilliant and inspiring as it could get.The acting is very powerful and the screenplay,settings,the cinematography and the music is fantastic.It´s historical interesting but most of all because it´s about humanity.It was made under the world war two. The sequence were Ivan is sick really touched me.Just take the example when prince Andrei Kurbsky is talking to Ivan´s wife about taking him exactly after he think´s that Ivan has died.Then the camera films on a painting on the wall just as if they was being watched.

A big epic masterpiece is truly what this film is.A bit frightening to.Visual magnificent.I haven´t seen part two yet but I will soon see it and I hope that I will found it as good as this.Without a doubt 5/5

Over-the-top spectacle, masterful storytelling and technique

[OldAle1 · 10/10 · 17 March 2008]

Eisenstein's devotees seem to be split into two camps: those who prefer his earlier, silent, more formalistic exercises like Potemkin and those who are more partial to the later sound films. Though I haven't yet seen Alexander Nevsky, my recent first viewing of the wartime Ivan will probably put me firmly in the second category. Much as I admire and respect his early works, no Eisenstein viewing up until now has hit me with the sheer joy of the form, storytelling and acting like this 2-part masterpiece made amazingly enough in the latter part of World War II. It's really quite astonishing that a large budget spectacle like this could have been conceived and executed so well in a country besieged....as the French Children of Paradise is in some ways a national epic given more gravity by the circumstances of its birth, so too we cannot help but look at Ivan as an exercise in the national will -- or at least Stalin's.

And certainly in Part I there is much to make the mad leader proud. Ivan is willful, prone to snap decisions, but cunning and charismatic, a born ruler it seems. This first film mostly deals with Ivan's consolidation of power, with the courting of allies -- and his wife-to-be Alexandra and the crushing of enemies, most notably in the exciting siege of Kazan, where Ivan himself comes up with the idea to fill tunnels under the city with gunpowder, and where he shows a compassionate side -- not to be seen often, though not insignificant -- in reprimanding his commander Kurbsky for unnecessary brutality. We also see the power wielded by the Tsar's aunt Efrosina who is in most respects the central antagonist of both films, as she plots to have her own son on the throne while Ivan lies sick. At the end, Ivan loses both his wife and his power, leaving Moscow and vowing only to return when the people want him to.

The storytelling is fluid and exciting and I had little trouble following the many plot strands despite a limited knowledge of 16th century Russian history; a big part of Eisenstein's genius in these films is in his (as always) extraordinary rhythmic editing and in an obsessive attention to detail that rivals anything seen in the cinema before or since. Every shot is suffused with poetry and meaning...the religious imagery everywhere, the animalistic symbolism embodied in Ivan (the hawk), Efrosina (the snake) and other characters, the regular movement from claustrophobia both physical and of the mind to open and huge spaces....this is both one of the most beautiful and overstuffed, sumptuous films ever made. My poor description isn't going to be up to the task; and I haven't yet even mentioned the acting, which is certainly theatrical and over-the-top in some ways, but in the best Orson Welles sense of that phrase. Indeed, of all actors only Welles to my mind could have competed with Nikolia Cherkassov in the central role of Ivan; and of all directors beside Eisenstein perhaps only Welles could have managed to weld the artifices of film, theater, pantomime and music together so organically. That music -- by then-rehabilitated Dmitri Shostakovich -- is powerful as well, though to my mind not as memorable as Prokofiev's work on Nevsky though I usually valued the former composer more highly; it's great music but it rarely comes to the forefront -- perhaps it just doesn't need to, with so many other elements competing with it in the vast filled-up canvas of the film.

The Criterion DVD showcases an absolutely superb print of the film, indeed it is one of the best-looking, best-preserved films of the period I have ever seen, razor sharp and crystal clear and clean. I didn't have time to go through all of the extras as I was just renting it but rest assured I will when I eventually buy it. This is one of half-dozen most powerful experiences I've had watching something at home, a classic that more than lives up to its high reputation.

A World Of Its Own

[jromanbaker · 10/10 · 11 November 2021]

I saw this very great film many years ago, but was unable to appreciate it. Perhaps some critics who undervalue it and those who praise it too much in their usual academic style influenced me. Perhaps too much has been said that surrounds the film and not the film itself. To me the first part is both theatre and silent cinema. It is all there in the coronation scene of Ivan, and he is simply there to unite a divided Russia, and many are there to oppose him doing so, but beyond that it is the images that count and the composition of the scenes. The composition is very much a theatre space, but the camera is far from theatre, concentrating in close-up, the coins which ceremoniously pour over his head and then shifting to the eyes which in almost silent film fashion express everything. Eisenstein loves, it seems to me, eyes and how they express emotion. Words are hardly necessary. Shock, ecstasy and conniving for power are all shown in a glance and faces are transformed immediately. Heads are often bent forward, accentuating the downward look which can show disdain and contempt immediately. No need for a character to express verbally at all, and the viewer knows everything. This happens in all cinema, but Eisenstein accentuates it to perfection. The final scene as Ivan watches the return of so many to him in a twisted line of people, and Ivan (perhaps now a man full of sorrow) watches head and beard in the foreground is a perfect example of ambiguity reminiscent of Garbo's expression at the end of 'Queen Christina'. Eisenstein can be called baroque, political, an expressionist and all the rest of the critical paraphernalia but for me there is no argument; he creates as no other director creates in a world of his own. A film, plus its second part 'The Boyar's Plot', to be treasured as long as film exists.

Czar Ivan Grozny (as in "Awesome," not really "Terrible": His life, defense of Russia, and conflicts with those who would sell it out.

[jmmartin-5 · 10/10 · 2 September 2007]

I know "Ten Best" lists are an exercise in futility since aesthetics are a subjective matter and no one can lay claim to knowing what is best, only what one likes. If the rating system at IMDb had eleven stars, I would award them to this one which, taken together with Part II, would be my all-time favorite film. (As one reviewer already has noted, one cannot truly appreciate what Eisenstein was up to unless one sees both Parts I and II, preferably back to back.) When I was studying film at UCLA, I had to do a term paper in a seminar on film aesthetics and I did it on these two movies. My title was, "Eisenstein's *Ivan the Terrible, Parts I and II: The Perfect Union of Form and Content." I tried to show how Eisenstein created a movie masterpiece by telling a story that works on three different levels: historical, satirical, and autobiographical. The two films (some work was done on a third part, but Eisenstein died of a heart attack before completing it, and in any case, the release of Part II was held up for decades once Stalin had caught on to the film's subtext) only superficially deal with the historical Ivan Grozny (in Russian, the meaning is more "awe-inspiring" or "formidable" than the English "terrible"). In fact, Eisenstein's Ivan is revisionist in the extreme, in part because he wanted to present a heroic figure who unites the Russian people against outside foes (in the movie, the Poles; in Eisenstein's time, Nazi Germany -- in fact, filming in Moscow had to be halted for a time so that production could be relocated to the resort town of Alma Atta). But as Ivan becomes more paranoid following the poisoning of the Czarina, Anastasia, at the hands of the patrician Boyars, he resorts to murderous plotting and counter-plotting, which Eisenstein uses as a metaphor for Stalinist pogroms against anyone "crazy" enough to question his reign. (Remember, if you spoke out against Stalin, you committed suicide by being thrown out of windows by the KGB, and those who escaped this fate wound up in Siberian slavery.) The third level on which the films operate, the autobiographical, presents Eisenstein as Ivan (hinted at by biographer Marie Seton when she included a photo of the director sitting in the Czar's actual chair, his feet dangling just like a shot in the film of the young Ivan during his regency). Eisenstein told Seton he had homosexual tendencies but that he thought homosexuality a "dead end." Of course, in Stalinist Russia, being homosexual was tantamount to being insane -- or traitorous. Eisenstein's movies are full of homosexual imagery, and *Ivan* is no exception. The Oprichniki, for example, Ivan's iron guard of loyal, KGB-like attendants, is depicted as a kind of samurai mafia which at times (e.g. the drunken banquet toward the end of Part II) seems definitely gay. That sequence includes a telling song and dance number by a pretty young Oprichnik who hides behind a female face-mask. In the same sequence, the Czar's drunken nephew, an effeminate young man, is dressed in the royal robes and sent into a cathedral where a Boyar assassin, thinking it is Ivan, stabs him to death. Although the Oprichniks want to kill the assassin, Ivan says to let him go, "for he has killed the Czar's worst enemy." In other words, they've murdered Eisenstein's own perceived weakness: his closeted homosexuality. The movie is full of such insights, and I can't think of a single other film that is so multi-layered. Once you begin looking for these things, you'll want to watch *Ivan* over and over again.

Ivan the Terrible, Part I

[jboothmillard · 7/10 · 26 February 2011]

I read that Russian director Sergei M. Eisenstein had intended to make a three part series, but he only managed to make the first two films, dying of a heart attack before he could complete it. I had to see if it was indeed the masterpiece it is claimed to be, especially as both parts appeared in the 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die. Basically archduke of Moscow, Ivan IV (Nikolai Cherkasov) crowned himself Tsar of Russia in 1547, and set about reclaiming the territories the country lost. His success in the empire are under threat from his enemies among the Boyars, and the chief amongst them is the Tsar's Aunt, The Boyarina Efrosinia Staritskaya (Serafima Birman), who wants her simpleton son Vladimir Andreyevich (Pavel Kadochnikov) to have a fortune, and there is also warrior Prince Andrei Kurbsky (Mikhail Nazvanov) wanting power and the hand of Tsarina Anastasia Romanovna (Lyudmila Tselikovskaya). Throughout the picture we see the coronation the Tsar, his wedding to Anastasia, his campaigning against the Tartans in Kazar, his illness which everyone believes he will die from, his recovery, his campaigning in the Baltic and Crimea, his exile in Alexandrov which he imposed himself, and his request to return to the Muscovites. Okay, I will be honest, I didn't catch on to all of this myself, it was hard to follow, and not just because I was trying to read the subtitles as well. Also starring Mikhail Zharov as Tsar's Guard Malyuta Skuratov, Andrei Abrikosov as Boyar Fyodor Kolychev, Aleksandr Mgebrov as Novgorod's Archbishop Pimen and Amvrosi Buchma as Czar's Guard Aleksei Basmanov. What I understood of the story was good, the costume design is fantastic, the iconic imagery, such as the shadow the Tsar with that beard, is effective, it works without relying on moving camera-work (i.e. no pans or zooms), and there are certainly some poignant scenes, it may have be hard to read the subtitles due to scratchiness, but it is a historical drama to see. Very good!

Ivan Rolls the Dice

[Hitchcoc · 10/10 · 20 March 2017]

I can't begin to be articulate enough to add to the incredible amount of praise that has gone to Sergei Eisenstein. When one realizes that in the seminal moments of film, a man like this emerged, it is astonishing. In this film we are introduced to Ivan who establishes his position in Russian history. The word "Terrible" is a bit misleading. Yes, to his enemies he was terrible and ruthless, but the word is more in line with "awe inspiring" in translation. With factions at work, constantly, and class warfare, Ivan negotiates the territory, engaging his enemies (in some cases betraying those who portend to be friends), making a significant marriage to a Tsarina who is desired by others for political reasons. He fights the Boyars, the Poles, and other adversaries. Despite defeats and sadness along the way, he manages to come forward. In some ways, he actually rises from the dead. This is an amazing film with the incredible closeups and camera angles, and, of course, masterful editing.

A Stalin-Ordered Biopic

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 13 February 2016]

During the early part of his reign, Ivan the Terrible (Nikolay Cherkasov) faces betrayal from the aristocracy and even his closest friends as he seeks to unite the Russian people.

During World War II, with the German army approaching Moscow, Eisenstein was one of many Moscow-based filmmakers who were evacuated to Alma Ata, in the Kazakh SSR. There, Eisenstein first considered the idea of making a film about Tsar Ivan IV, aka Ivan the Terrible, whom Joseph Stalin admired as the same kind of brilliant, decisive, successful leader that Stalin considered himself to be. Aware of Eisenstein's interest in a project about Ivan, Stalin ordered the making of the film with Eisenstein as author-director.

Certain symbols are constantly repeated within the film; notable examples include the single eye which refers to truth. Eisenstein was clearly the master of Russian cinema during his lifetime, with no other director even coming close. Following his career is like reading the history of Russian cinema.

It is interesting to see this was something of a turning point. Eisenstein's early films, such as "Strike" and "Battleship Potemkin", are clearly propaganda in favor of the Soviet regime. This film is pro-Soviet in a sense (being endorsed by Stalin), but is also a great historical film in its own right. But it would be his last, as he would have a break with Stalin... and then die. Did Eisenstein begin to become disillusioned with the Soviet Union following the release of this film?

Masterpiece -- not an exaggeration

[jacksflicks · 9/10 · 10 November 2009]

A masterpiece of world cinema. It really is! I go against the tide and prefer Ivan I to Ivan II. Here is a fascinating look at how Ivan overcomes the boyars, loses his best friend to his wife and loses his wife to the treachery that transforms him into The Terrible, played out in spooky places where, as Kael says, people slide in and out of the walls like giant spiders.

You need -- indeed, will want -- to watch this one more than once. At first you may indeed find the wide-eyed faces a bit comical, but the more you watch the more you appreciate Eisenstein's view that everybody in Ivan's court is a bit mad.

The context of this production is the same as that of Olivier's Henry V: Russia and England were fighting for their lives, and these movies were meant to stir their audiences with patriotic fervor. Both construct scenes as grand tableaux, Henry V like medieval paintings, Ivan like grand opera or Kabuki.

In fact, a real treat is to watch the Criterion version of both, Henry V in its sumptuousness, Ivan in its stark grandeur. Contrast the respective British and the Russian approaches to myth-making on behalf of their Great Patriotic Wars. Compare endings. I find the English the more lyrical, the Russian the more powerful. What do you think?

Christ like defence of Imperialism

[llareggub · 7/10 · 24 December 2007]

The combination of Russian adventurism in the Near East and Russian Orthodox Christianity, juxtaposed with the terrible fight for survival against the Nazis, produced this masterpiece. Never mind that such understatements as "In Which We Serve" reduce this to it's rightful place in propaganda- that just moves IWWS up towards it's rightful place amongst the Greatest Films Ever Made. This is more along the lines of the wartime production of Harry V- great propaganda, but stuff that tells more about the producers than their erstwhile enemies.

Harry lauded the British qualities of beggar thy master, a British Longbowman is as good, and sometimes more worthwhile, than his lord; Ivan says that Comrade Stalin is worth ten divisions, especially if he looks like Jesus Christ (a bird- I am stuffed if I can figure that one out; maybe some people have been reading too much Derrida inspired, Post Structuralist Bovine Excrement). As an ex-seminarian, Comrade Stalin almost certainly had a Messiah Complex; as a Russian, he definitely had no time for any democratic drivel. A Makarov bullet to the back of the brain inspired him, Putin, and every nasty Russian Dictator in between.

Americans and Russians have two things in common- they were the last people on earth to outlaw slavery in the 19th Century, and they were the last people on earth to recognise, and fight, the horror of Fascism in the 20th. As propaganda, this is great; as history, it is frightening.

Somewhat over-hyped, but worth seeing - though not for everyone.

[f_alcon · 4/10 · 8 September 2004]

Ivan The Terrible is more a filmed stage play than a "big-screen-opus". Citizen Kane - a similar work in many ways - is quite the opposite (in the way we come to expect such fare) in that it has lots of location shooting for example.

Acting is meant to convey a character's motivations and thinking to the audience; if it succeeds in making you understand the character, what does it matter HOW it was done? And considering the low amount of action, how else is one to express events that influence the story, and consequently the characters' machinations and decisions other than "exaggerated movements"?

As well, there's a historical level why the acting style should not surprise. The rise of totalitarian regimes in Germany and USSR forced film-makers who stayed behind to make films the way they knew how. As they were prevented access to more modern works that showed cinema's evolution and techniques, they only used what they knew.

The Nazi's control of government in Germany destroyed the great German film industry of the 1920's, due to their total control over that film industry. And propaganda films can only "entertain" German troops so much; hence the need for popular German silent films of the 1920's, for example. So a lot of Ivan The Terrible film's techniques would have been derived from such captured German films supplied to the film crew (as mentioned in other comments).

There was no confusion anywhere and though personally it was found over-hyped, it is by no means a bad cinematic experience - and definitely NOT amongst the worse films ever. The acting is fine, and part of the cinematography excellent (even by today's standards; more below). Definitely not a popcorn flick; one can't leave their brain outside this one's door. Dated perhaps and very symbolic - only worth watching on the big screen if one is unable to view the films with the lights off at home, for many of the cinematic elements will be lost in these films' chiefly B&W experience. It all depends upon what expectations one walks in with...

WARNING - SPOILERS: Do not read the following comments, in case they influence your personal view of the film(s).

...and if one does not mind the obvious communist propaganda (as opposed to capitalist propaganda). For Ivan is how Stalin saw himself - obvious in his influence on the film's direction (see other comments) - and anyone with a world historical awareness outside the US perspective will definitely understand this. Maybe Ivan was an earlier incarnation of Stalin, or maybe not; this is more a diatribe on Stalin and his motivations, decisions, loneliness, promotions of lackeys, etc - using the persona of Ivan - than any true historical record of Ivan. Also note the obvious use of particular colours in the sequel: Red (for the USSR) in the banquet scene. And perhaps blue (for the USA) during certain shots when the usurper wears the crown?

But it has many excellent visuals such as the profound use of shadows, or the exterior shot of the populace coming to beg Ivan's return to Moscow.