Ivan the Terrible, Part II: The Boyars' Plot (1958) User Reviews (46)

Sympathetic portrayal of a cracked despot (part 2)

[Spondonman · 8/10 · 18 March 2007]

Part 2 followed on from Part 1 without a gap – the 2 put together would make one colossal movie. The only trouble being that the last 90 minutes or so would still be missing (Part 3). This has a 16 minute colour sequence near the end plus the last 2 minutes that added a new dimension to the story, and although the spotlighting was a bit ropey it all worked well with the usual fantastic camera angles and ugly brooding people.

Ivan vacillates between doing it his way and relying on Mother Church for help. Either way the plotting aristocratic boyars have to be sorted out for once and for all, this he sets out to accomplish with the help of the Men Apart – his NKVD. In reality Ivan was going mad at this period, the similarities to Stalin still resound. Eisenstein pulled his punches but must have known Part 2 would end up in trouble, which it did – it wasn't released from the metaphorical gulag until 1958, and Part 3 was aborted. Intensely absorbing and startlingly melodramatic by turns it still hasn't got the same energy as Part 1, but that only makes it a lesser classic. Again, it resembles a sedate silent film with sound (with a bit of red this time), the simple tale powerfully told by a master propagandist using sledgehammer symbolism at every turn. Intelligent film-making is hardly the phrase to use – a previous post compared Eisenstein correctly to Kurosawa – very different styles but with the same results.

Wonderful sequel, much better to be watched on the heels of Part 1. At least the people who didn't like that won't watch this and comment adversely on it, right?

"Truly, what pleasure is it to be Tsar?"

[Steffi_P · 9/10 · 8 June 2007]

The second in what should have been a trilogy, Ivan the Terrible Part 2 follows on from Part I not only in story but in style. Eisenstein approached the Ivan the Terrible films from a traditional theatrical angle appropriate to the subject matter. As others have commented, this was his equivalent of a Shakespeare adaptation.

If anything, Part 2 is even more baroque and stylised than its predecessor. The opening scene – the defection of Kurbsky - is Eisenstein at his most operatic, with exaggerated acting that flows along with Prokofiev's score. But it's totally cinematic too, with spot on editing between facial close-ups, giving us an impression of the allegiances and hidden thoughts at play here. Eisenstein never really stopped thinking like a director of silents, and although the Ivan films are quite wordy they can be read and understood purely as visuals.

The first scene is also the lightest and happiest, which seems unusual – after all it's a scene in which Ivan's best friend is betraying him and going over to join his enemy – but in the context of the whole picture perhaps it's not that strange. While Ivan the Terrible Part 1 was a great study of the power of a charismatic individual, part 2 focuses more on the loneliness and insecurity of a powerful figure. The majority of part 2 is incredibly dark and eerie, full of disturbing imagery. Ivan is ageing, he's widowed and he trusts no-one. Eisenstein still makes him vaguely sympathetic, but more as a tragic figure than a conquering hero. So it makes sense for Kurbsky's betrayal to be so bright and jaunty – this is the world Ivan has lost. Of course, it's fairly likely that Eisenstein was himself feeling stifled by the Soviet regime, and perhaps the subtext here is that he secretly longed to do a Kurbsky himself!

Part 2 includes a short colour sequence in the film's climax. This serves to show off a hypnotic dance routine, a magnificent set piece which forms a backdrop to Ivan's final act of retribution against his enemies. The picture quality is terrible here (No Technicolor in the USSR!), even worse than early two-strip Technicolor. It's very fuzzy, and only the blues and reds show up boldly. Eisenstein takes this on board however, and uses red and blue to create a "hot" and "cold" look respectively, using the two colours as he used light and dark in monochrome.

Although they are very similar, I prefer part 2 somewhat to part 1. Whereas part 1 was more a collection of episodes, part 2 is a more complete, singular story. As a little side point, Ivan the Terrible part 2 should perhaps be classed as a musical. There are several musical numbers, two are in the context of the film, but the other is a genuine case of a character bursting into song, like a medieval Russian Julie Andrews. And why not? The musical is a cousin of the opera, and the border between opera and cinema is incredibly close in this picture.

Sadly, this picture was banned by the soviet state and part 3 (which was already in production) was axed. Purportedly this was because the highlighting of Ivan's iron rule and his use of spies and secret police was thought to be an attack on Stalin's government, although I think the real reason might have been more personal. Stalin looked upon Ivan as a role model, and may have taken offence at the portrayal of the Tsar as a paranoid, decrepit old man (Like Disney, Eisenstein often drew upon animal characteristics; some have compared the middle-aged Ivan to Disney's Big Bad Wolf, although I've always thought of him as looking more like a vulture). Whatever the case, we are on the one hand very lucky that Eisenstein's swansong has survived intact, yet on the other hand unlucky that the concluding part of the trilogy never saw the light of day, as it would surely have been another classic.

The part of Ivan the Terrible that Stalin did not like

[frankde-jong · 9/10 · 6 August 2020]

"Ïvan the Terrible" (1944 and 1958) was made in the second part of the career of Sergeij Eisenstein. It was no longer the Eisenstein of the revolutionary movies ("Battleship Potemkin" (1925) and "Oktober" (1927)) with associative montage and short cuts. It was the Eisentein of historical drama's ("Alexander Nevski" (1938 and "Ivan the Terrible" (1944 & 1958)) with clearly noticable influences of German expressionism and long takes. Mainly due to the beautiful music of Sergei Prokofiev the movie takes on elements of a Wagnerian opera.

In part 2 of the film Ivan, maybe because of the death of his wife, becomes ever more suspicious and cruel. Stalin liked this part of the movie a lot less than the first part. Probably he recognized too much of himself in the character of Ivan and was afraid the moviegoer would make the same connection. Whatever it may be, the film was banished in Russia until 1958, 10 years after the death of Eisenstein and 5 years after the death of Stalin.

Brilliant

[jay4stein79-1 · 5 November 2004]

Ivan the Terrible Part II, the culmination of Eisenstein's career, is easily one of the most brilliant films of all time.

Nothing - repeat absolutely nothing - in this film is sub-par. The acting, especially the inhuman physical contortions of Nikolai Cherkasov as the Tsar himself, is uniformly excellent. As is to be expected from Eisenstein, the direction is perfect. Eisenstein's compositions create painterly tableaux that can be watched endlessly on pause (especially now that Criterion has issued both Ivans on DVD), allowing the audience to take in the full breadth of this man's genius. Additionally, unlike, for example, Alexander Nevsky or Strike, Ivan the Terrible Part II (and part I) benefits from a smoother pace and better editing, putting Eisenstein's theory of montage to its best use since Potemkin.

For me, however, what two key components of this film set it apart from its prequel and Eisenstein's earlier Potemkin and October.

Those components, as you can imagine, are its more pronounce political allegory and its color sequence towards the end.

Certainly October and Potemkin were highly politicized affairs, both celebrating the Communist victory in Russia. In Ivan the Terrible Part II (and to a lesser extent Part I), the audience bears witness to a moment of challenge wherein Eisenstein becomes critical of the course his country and its post-Lenin leaders have taken. As such, Ivan the Terrible becomes one of the bravest moments in film history and, for that alone, should be commended.

Brilliant as a political critique, the film also represents a dazzling demonstration of how color could be used in cinema. The colorized dance at the end of the film rivals and prefigures the technicolor explosion in Douglas Sirk's 1950s melodramas; furthermore, it reveals that color can be used to achieve specific effects. It does not have to mimic reality; rather it can be used artistically to enhance the mood and atmosphere of the film.

Taken as a whole, the two-part Ivan the Terrible is a masterpiece of Russian Cinema and should be required viewing for anyone with the slightest bit of interest in film. My preference lies with the second part, but both are fantastic moments in film history.

Shakespeare could like it

[kikuchiyo-1 · 10/10 · 12 March 2005]

While the first part of "Ivan the Terrible" is unique, stylized and powerful historical chronicle, second part is something more: poignant tragedy of authority. Since boyars poisoned Ivan's wife and his friends betrayed him, tsar remains in lonely. Oprichniki are only people he can trust. Ivan orders to kill some of boyars for instance, then Efrosinia Staricka (his aunt) sets plot against his life. One word gives atmosphere of this film: paranoia. Every character cares burden of fear - about his life, about his political business. Pervasive fear is delivered to us with unearthly dance of shadows, dramatic Prokofiev's score, haunting acting, poetic dialogs, monumental decorations and costumes. Everything looks very artificial but, paradoxically, not false; this film works with peerless emotional strength and brings as much true about authority as Shespeare's best works, being compatible to Maciavlelian theory of authority. There are only few films in history of cinema that so heavily consider problems of power (I'd mention "The Godfather, Part II" and Kurosawa's "Kagemusha" and "Ran" beside "Boyars Plot"). Don't miss. And if you decide to watch this film, I recommend: take great Criterion DVD box set which contains also first part and "Alexander Nevsky", another Eisenstein's sound masterpiece.

This is the movie of my life

[ritamaduro · 10/10 · 7 February 2006]

Ivan Grosnyy, Part II is the movie of my life; the Part I is also a very good film. It is the masterpiece of Sergei Eisenstein. Unfortunately we can never see the Part III of this meant to be trilogy. The performances (especially Nikolai Cherkasov), the photography, the wardrobe, the scenarios and the shots are the most beautiful I have ever seen in the history of film-making. However, it is necessary to watch the Part I first to understand the history. I suggest to all the people who like this genre of film to see another very good film of Sergey Eisenstein: Alexander Nevsky once again with Nikolai Cherkasov in the main role. I recommend to all the people who want to see these movies to by the Criterion DVD box set, which contains also first part and, Alexander Nevsky. Don't die without seeing these masterpieces.

Eisenstein's UNFINISHED SYMPHONY

[colossus34 · 10/10 · 1 November 2004]

Ivan the Terrible marks the final stages of the cinema's greatest creative genius: SERGI EISENSTEIN. It is the work of a director, a supreme artist who never ceased in probing new boundires, striking out uncharted paths, and searching the outer limits of his art. In the work, Eisenstein has gone eons beyond his earlier methods of film creation and for the first time approaches a true synthesis of dance, music, poetry, painting, photography, architecture, and all other forms of aesthetic communication.

The trials and tribulations surrounding the production and distribution of Ivan have become legendary in there own right. The film drew sharp criticism from Stalin and Eisenstein was forced to publicly announce his ''formalist errors.'' Subsequently, the film was banned in Russia until 1958 and Eisenstein was ostracized for what many saw as a film full of ''excess.'' It took many years before the world would come to realize it is nothing short of his greatest masterpiece.

A true cinematic realization of the ever elusive ''total work of art.'' A concept that originated with the Ancient Greeks and was further formulated by Richard Wagner in his epic masterwork, ''THE RING CYCLE.'' The Gestanmueack or ''intragel work of art'' as Wagner called it was in essence the synthesizing of every artistic medium into a single polyphonic experience. In the 20th century Eisenstein saw Wagner's music dramas as predecessors of cinema; a cinema that synthesized elements of all of mankind's arts into a single majestic, visceral and emotional experience which could transform and transfix the spectator. Together with the world renowned composer, master Sergei Prokofiev, and his lifelong cinematographer Eduard Tisse, Eisenstein labored for years researching and planning out every camera angle, lighting scheme, musical note, costume, color palette, gesture, and perspective; until every scene in Ivan becomes an intricate and complex world of its own. A world where actors twist and bend their forms to the limits of the plastic frame, shadows conceal and light reveals, the musical notes flow with the rhythm and tempo of the visual image and in the famous banquet scene, colors are used by Eisenstein to delve into the psychological states of the character's mind and state of being. It becomes a universe composed so precisely and diligently that every frame is infused with hidden metaphorical and symbolic meanings, and serves to create the epitome of cinematic achievement.

Tragically, like Schubert's great ''Unfinished Symphony'' or the Venus di Milo, Eisenstein passed away before completing the final part of his epic masterwork. What remains of Ivan the Terrible will live forever as a testament not only to the genius of Sergei Eisenstein but also to his unparalleled contribution to the world culture of the 20th century.

Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible films are two hugely underrated masterpieces

[zetes · 10/10 · 27 April 2001]

There is not a single criticism I could make for either Ivan the Terrible Film. They are perfect films, original, effective, and affecting. Perhaps the two best films ever made. If not, they're to be included on my list of totally invaluable films, with not a doubt in my mind.

II begins exactly where I ends. Ivan has consolidated his power in Moscow, at least with the people (though not with the nobles, or "boyars"). In fact, what power he has inspires jealousy and fear in the boyars.

Ivan I builds Ivan up as a noble character. We despise the boyars for their flagrant wealth and greed, and we like Ivan for supporting the people. His closest comrades seem like Homeric heroes.

Ivan II develops Ivan's character even further. He may have power, but he still feels alone on the throne. His two greatest friends have left him, one gone to religion and one to the enemy. His immediate underlings, perceived as heroes in Ivan I, have grown paranoid and powerful. They convince Ivan to execute left and right. The only route for the boyars is to conspire Ivan's death.

Ivan II leads up to one of the single greatest climax I can think of. To heighten the effect, for the first time, Eisenstein opted to shoot in color. And as masterful as he was with black and white, he is also with color. The juxtaposition of color with black and white is absolutely amazing.

The only problem with the film is no one's fault. Part II ends, open for the third installment. Alas, Sergei Eisenstein would die before its completion. We're lucky enough to have Ivan the Terrible Part II, for Stalin demanded that it not be released theatrically, believing Ivan to be a portrait of himself. Eisenstein, in fact, never had the chance to see it released theatrically, was never to hear the lavish praise from critics the world round. Here I praise it, hoping that in the next world possibly Eisenstein can know what masterworks he made.

Like The First Film, Visually Wonderful, But A Very Dull Story

[MogwaiMovieReviews · 6/10 · 5 October 2022]

I have to agree with Pauline Kael, who wrote that Ivan the Terrible was "so lacking in human dimensions that you may stare at it in a kind of outrage. True, every frame in it looks great - it's a brilliant collection of stills - but as a movie, it's static, grandiose, and frequently ludicrous."

The story is certainly busier in this one than the first, in which very little happens, though I'd say the first has better images, which in this case is what you are here for. The story itself is clearly just vacuous propaganda, with most people's interest in it to do with spotting what criticisms of Stalin were smuggled in that got it banned.

Eisenstein was a visual master, as great as any other who lived, but he was cursed to live in the Soviet Union, who stifled and suppressed all original and individual artistic thought, and ruined the lives and careers of any artists dissenting from the party line - a lot like how Hollywood is today, now that I think about it. This led the best Soviet filmmakers to give themselves over to expanding the abstract, visual - non-political - aspect of their art to heights of beauty and innovation the rest of the world never reached, while at the same time abandoning the story, which they knew they had no control over, altogether. It's hard to think of a better example of this than Ivan The Terrible.

One of the true masterpieces of the cinema...

[rnair · 10/10 · 1 October 2005]

This space can't afford me the kind of gargantuan platform needed to speak on Eisenstein's masterwork (both parts) with the sort of attention to detail and passion that the director brings to the story of the Russian tsar. This is the rarest of films that stands as a testament to how cinema can extend beyond an entertainment and exist as a singular work of art and a document that works to expand our knowledge of the human condition. Every frame is rich, every scene speaks far more than any written line or action. The production is a phenomenal achievement in the absolute totality of the collaborative effort; the actors, the set, the cinematography, the soundtrack - every facet of the film-making process has worked to create a seamless connection. While the approach of the actors, the lighting and the choices of camera angles frustrate our standard ideas of what a movie should look and feel like, there is a design here; it is precise and it is brilliant. This is a film for those viewers who, as Eisenstein famously said, read (not just watched) the images on the screen. One of the two or three true masterworks in the history of movies.

Eisenstein vs. Stalin

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 3 May 2017]

As Ivan the Terrible attempts to consolidate his power by establishing a personal army, his political rivals, the Russian boyars, plot to assassinate their Tsar.

This film has made it to Roger Ebert's "Great Movies" list, as well as many other lists of movies to see before you die. And, indeed, it really is an incredible story of Russia, the Tsar, the church and the boyars (the old aristocracy in Russia).

But what makes the film most notable is not the film itself (though it is good), but its production history. This film upset Stalin himself, effectively banning the movie for over a decade, as well as resulting in the cancellation of part three and essentially ending Sergei Eisensein's film career. As Eisenstein is possibly the greatest Russian director of all time, this is quite a feat.

An allegory of power, an analysis of Stalinism

[matzoni · 10/10 · 20 September 2004]

Like the first part of the movie "Boyarsky Zagovor" (Conspiracy of the Boyars)is indeed a film about Stalin (who was a great admirer of Ivan the IV.) and the (seem-to-be)mechanics of power itself. The ideology, which is acted out (or reflected?!) stays much the same: one people/one leader is the ideal and necessary state of the (russian) nation, enabling it to take up with the other nations ("the Germans")The terror on the boyars and the elimination of some of them reflects Stalin's paranoiac action on comrades, subaltern party-members with the help of the "oprichniki" (here: Beriya and consorts). For instance, once in the movie, Ivan makes 'one of his best friends' the metropolit of Moscow, but in the same sequence is persuaded by the oprichniki's leader to kill his relevant to make him scared of Ivan's power. Because of this illustration of paranoiac stalinist mechanism, I can't agree on the popular notion, that the second movie is not as good as the first. One more reason: the most startling child actor ever: Erik Pyryev as the young tsar, ordering the chief boyar to be lashed.

Ivan the Terrible, Part II

[jboothmillard · 7/10 · 3 March 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. I'm not sure if the story was picking up where it left off, but basically Tsar Ivan IV (Nikolai Cherkasov) of Russia in the 16th Century, suffered the death of his wife Anastasia from poisoning, and his chief warrior Prince Andrei Kurbsky (Mikhail Nazvanov) defected to the Poles, and he makes a friend with Fyodor Kolychev (Andrei Abrikosov) who becomes Archbishop Philip the monk for Moscow. However Philip gets his decisions from the Boyars and tries to get Ivan to follow the church, but the Tsar in fact gets his private force the Oprichniks to find the Boyars. Led by Boyarina Efrosinia Staritskaya (Serafima Birman), Ivan's aunt, are planning to assassinate him in order to get her son Vladimir Andreyevich (Pavel Kadochnikov) on the throne. The Tsar does mock Vladimir with a crowning at a banquet and sends him in the robes to the cathedral where the assassin waits, and he does go out to do the murder, only to see the wrong man killed, and in the end Ivan kills the guilty people. 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 and Aleksandr Mgebrov as Novgorod's Archbishop Pimen. What I understood of the story was good, the costume design is fantastic, the iconic imagery, such as the two scenes going into colour, 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!

Not nearly as horrible as the first part, but still NOT a very good film--despite all the hype!!

[planktonrules · 4/10 · 12 August 2006]

It just so happens that IVAN THE TERRIBLE, PARTS I and II both had entries in the 50 Worst Movies book by Harry Medved. Now, I do think that declaring they are among the worst movies ever is an overstatement, though they are still both pretty poor films--particularly the first one, as it featured more eye rolling and "googly eyed looks" than I have ever seen before!! Director Eisenstein and an awful lot of other people out there thought this made the film "artsy and profound"--and since I am legally sane, I must say that I hated this first film!! The second, while still very incomplete-looking, is a vast improvement, as eye rolling is minimal, though overacting and long boring scenes are present in this film just like in part 1! While part 2 looks pretty incomplete and needed at least another hour (especially since it never gets to Ivan's insane behavior later in life--like killing his son and heir while in a fit of anger). Since both parts 1 and 2 were commissioned by Stalin to both excuse his own murderous reign and glorify him, it's no surprise that Ivan's life story is left very incomplete. Even without all the truly awful behaviors of Ivan, apparently the supremely evil Stalin STILL didn't like the film and wouldn't allow its release during his lifetime. Maybe he didn't allow this because he was more worried people would see what a HUGE waste of money and resources the film was instead of seeing Stalin as a crazy guy just like Ivan!

By the way, there was one segment of this tedious film that was just so cool that the film merits a 4 (without it, a 2)--and that's the scene with Prince Vladimir at the banquet! It is well-done and pretty funny in a dark way. And, the scene was done in a Russian version of 2-color Technicolor. This is VERY odd, by the way, because by the mid-1930s, a vastly improved true color process was developed by Technicolor that no longer made everything look all orangy-red and greenish-blue. So, this film during the color sequences looks a lot like a silent or early sound color film. Very odd indeed for the 1940s.

Excellent in Every Respect

[Snow Leopard · 12 May 2004]

This second part of Eisenstein's history of the reign of "Ivan the Terrible" is an excellent portrayal of the complex machinations between the famous tsar and his determined rivals, the boyars. The story, the settings, the actors, and the characters surpass even the high standards of Part One. Nikolai Cherkasov is again excellent in his portrayal of Ivan, with even his occasional exaggerations fitting nicely into his memorable characterization of the formidable tsar. Serafima Birman is again quite effective as Ivan's aunt and most bitter rival. As Vladimir, Pavel Kadochnikov gets much more to do than he did in Part One, and he makes good use of his scenes. The character of Vladimir - foolish and timid, but with ambition in his heart - is important to the way that events play out.

The story in Part Two picks up at a low point for Ivan, finding him with few friends and many problems. As the boyars begin to plot, there is less outward action than there was in Part One, but the drama is even tauter and the stakes even higher. The picture is also rounded out by the flashbacks to Ivan's youth, which give an even more complete picture of this complex ruler. (The English nickname 'terrible' does not really convey the full sense of his actual nickname in Russian.)

The early scenes lead up to the lengthy sequence of the banquet and its aftermath, which a masterpiece of psychological drama and effective film-making. The cat-and-mouse game between Ivan and his enemies is complemented by the color, imagery, and other details, and it all leads up to a climax filled with tension and possibilities.

Eisenstein's series on Ivan showcases the great Russian director's distinctive technique, and it is certainly one of the finest of all historically-based movies. With memorable characters, interesting stories, and lots of creativity, both movies are well worth multiple viewings - and this second part is even better than the first.

It should be in a museum.

[dbdumonteil · 10/10 · 8 August 2001]

It's great art.Eisenstein can be compared to Michelangelo,no less.Needless to say,you've got to see part one -slightly inferior to this one,but what does it mean,when you' re watching the seventh art at the height of its terrible powers?-.This part focuses on the feud between Ivan and his aunt who tries to replace him by an effeminate imposter of her choice.Prokofiev music gives the feeling of watching an opera,the scenes in the cathedral recreate a mystery as it was in the Middle Ages as faithfully as you can wish.The peak of the movie remains the banquet,shot in color,thanks to spoils of war film.So stunning is Eisenstein's mastery of the picture that you can hardly exactly tell when the color returns to black and white (which for the final becomes a color in itself)Ivan's last soliloquy might seem aggressive and chauvinistic.But you've got to remember that the USSR were at war at the time ."Ivan" is timeless ,a monument that's as awesome today as it was for its -deleted,because of Stalin- 1958 release.

A Sequel That Is Another Masterpiece

[claudio_carvalho · 10/10 · 2 November 2003]

In 1564, Ivan, The Terrible (Nicolai Cherkasov), is feeling alone: his wife, friend and great companion was poisoned and his best friend, Prince Andreu Kurbsky (Mikhail Nazvanov) has betrayed him and delivered some Russian cities to Poland. Trying to have somebody to believe, he promotes Archbishop Philip (Andrei Abrikosov) to the highest authority of the church in the city of Moscow. Then, the story presents lot of treason in his court and a great revenge. This movie is so remarkable as `Part I' is. The photography, lights and shadows in black and white are again a piece of art. There are at least twenty minutes in color, and in my opinion t would be better off being only in black and white. The sumptuous scenarios are amazing, plenty of details and very luxury, and the story is a sequel of an epic. The direction and the performance of the cast are outstanding, making this movie another unforgettable masterpiece and highly recommended. However, it is necessary to watch the `Part I' first, otherwise the viewer will not understand the story. My vote is ten.

History is small in front of this film

[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. By the way do not believe what the historical presentation of the bonuses tell you, in English, at least in my edition, because it is purely there to pacify those who may see Stalin behind Ivan.

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

pinnacle of melodrama

[jimi99 · 10/10 · 24 February 2006]

After filming part I of "Ivan" in his classical vein, with his mastery of the silent era still finely honed, Eisenstein had a much different vision for Part II. It is nothing short of his Wagnerian opera, albeit with a score by the master Prokofiev, with all the surreality and hysteria inherent in opera. It is also his most modern film, with the brilliant kinetic color sequence of the banquet, surely one of the most famous and astounding scenes ever filmed. Shot in the dire depths of World War II, in 1944-45, it is like all Russian films passionately nationalistic, but perhaps it was too Wagnerian for Stalin, who hated it, demanded Eisenstein repudiate it, which not only prevented the master from filming the 3rd part of his trilogy, but destroyed his career and health.

For modern audiences, particularly postmodern audiences, the film has the stagy melodramatic acting, pacing and movement of the silent era that videodrones and harrypotters will never appreciate. But out of the melodramatic style unfolds the most emotionally honest drama, however larger than life and on a grand historical canvas.

I can understand why some would like it better than the first one but I do not

[julibufa · 6/10 · 26 February 2023]

Ivan the Terrible Part II was famously shun from public viewing by the State. This is ironic (and Eisenstein probably knew what was coming to him) because the character that was so beloved by communists in Part I becomes more tyrannical in Part II, which is a heavy foreshadow for Stalin himself, who banned it. Nevertheless, we do have the final product in its intended form, subtitled "The Boyars' Plot", which I find somewhat redundant because the previous film does the same thing with the boyars; I wouldn't be surprised if they also plotted in Part III.

We get to see some of Ivan the Terrible's childhood. It turns out the nobles assassinated his mother. The death of his mother is actually the worst scene in the whole thing because she comes out to say "I've been poisoned" and proceeds to die, which is incredibly corny. Despite this, the significance of these scenes I do appreciate. It gives Ivan a more layered, biased reason for his political opposition to the boyars. This is not at all to say the nobility doesn't deserve reprehension especially in old states like these, I'm just saying it makes the plot more intricate. I restrain myself from critiquing some unfinished thoughts in the movie because I don't know how much of it was to be continued, but for now I'll just state this: the significance of Ivan's mother being murdered doesn't really come up afterwards in this particular film, and it's a shame because it makes its inclusion seem at random or as filler.

The only thing left after this is, well, the boyars' plot, which is to kill Ivan. So the rest of the film is divided into two long sequences. The first sequence is in color, and sees Ivan at a banquet. Vladimir, a prominent character in both films, is a young boyar descendant who the nobility wants to put in place of Ivan. They tried to do it in the first movie and they now plan to do it after killing Ivan. Vladimir is not wise nor smart, and he gets drunk at the banquet and almost reveals the plot to Ivan, who already knows it. The banquet sequence is in color, which breaks some grounds, and there could be multiple reasons for this. But to me the actual use of color in contrast benefits the next scene, which is in black-and-white. Ivan convinces drunk Vladimir to put on the tsar's clothes and pretend to walk down the castle in prayer, followed by the Oprichniki (the tsar's devout followers). This sequence is my favorite part because the previous scene, in color, full of movement and music and food, is now stopped abruptly to see a drunk man dressed as tsar followed by hundreds of black hoodies slowly through the castle, all in black-and-white. The first movie has more iconic moments for me, but the visual feast that this sequence presents is a cut above. It finishes with Vladimir's mother Evfrosinia (Ivan's aunt) holding Vladimir in the ground, who has been killed believed to be the actual tsar. This is the best moment in the film because once Vladimir's body is taken away, the tsar's crown is the only thing left and Evfrosinia stays still as if her son is still there, summarizing the desires of that character: she never loved her dumb son, but the crown instead.

The Boyars' Plot has good individual scenes, like the aforementioned death of Vladimir. Another good scene would be young Ivan asking the boyar to step out of his bed. I like that scene particularly for the connotation of boyars obeying the king in royal contexts, yet completely undermining him when they're all alone with him. This scene is also the first moment Ivan expresses his distaste for the nobility and send one of them to die, so it is important.

However, that being said, the plot moves very slowly and there isn't a smooth progression from point A to point B sometimes, considering the film is also short like the first one, which does it much better. The ending is good and leaves on a high note for the next part which never happened. I would assume that third film would've been the best out of the three because it could have included Ivan's murder of his own son, some of his political wars and finally his death. With that in mind, I can't help but think that this second movie would probably be considered "the one where nothing happens" in the trilogy.

6.5/10.

expressionism as a the ultimate means to majestic art

[atrolleynatrain · 10/10 · 12 December 2005]

part two is undoubtedly the best half. not just for the entrancing colour scenes that flash before our eyes as a most generous gift, but also because the eerier ivan never gives in to the monster he seems to have become. ivan is depicted like a forgiving evil spirit and these opposite natures make the character the puzzling critique to despots and other scum of the sort it is. one of the works of art that has haunted me since i was a teenager and hasn't lost its spell. furthermore, the invocation of the tsar's childhood offers one of the best acting performances of both movies (part 1 and 2): ivan, the young orphan. in a way, we're eventually disarmed through the strange beauty of the boy, already the tsar, already the god-like figure. the love and care deprived angel grows into the grey bearded nocturnal predator with his thugs in black hoods only to concede damnation to his aunt, conceding her a bit of well-deserved distorted muliebrity in the lush portrait of the demented pietá. but both young and adult ivans are truly and deeply the depiction of righteousness, no matter what kingdom, no matter what purposes, and revenge itself takes the frame of sacrificial salvation with the Shakespearian counter-plot against his foes. to sum up, cherkassov's strabismus and thick eyelashes are just superficial baits to a huge masterpiece of film-making.

A fantastic sequel which left every movie buff to mourn over Sergei Eisenstein's Unfinished Trilogy. A grand Farewell by the Russian Genius!

[SAMTHEBESTEST · 7/10 · 28 September 2021]

Ivan Groznny / Ivan The Terrible Part 2 (1944/1958) : Brief Review -

A fantastic sequel which left every movie buff to mourn over Sergei Eisenstein's Unfinished Trilogy. A grand Farewell by the Russian Genius! Before watching Ivan The Terrible part 1 and 2 i didn't know that there was 3rd part in making which was lett unfinished after the demise of Eisenstein. I was watching it as a two part story only but then the climax left me wanting for more. This film is Special for that reason. Not because it has something outstanding stored in but because it was the last film of Sergei Eisenstein (call me an emotional fool and i don't mind, i owe that much to the genius filmmaker). So, Ivan The Terrible picks from where we were left and eventually it becomes 'Terrible' in real. That thing was missing in the first part when i saw Tsar getting hurt by his wife's death. Here i saw his terrible Avatar alright, just as the title suggests. As Ivan the Terrible attempts to consolidate his power by establishing a personal army, his political rivals, the Russian boyars, plot to assassinate their Tsar. But, Tsar is smart enough to set-up his own game against his enemies and get them on their knees afterall. Like i said in my review of part 1, this dual-part series is not for mainstream cinema lovers. It has that artistic flow against the stream. It has those close frames, pauses and moment which you might call outdated and too old as if we are watching a 1910's film but try and understand what the director wanted to present. The theme is bound to get period right and the symphonic storytelling is about how we would imagine the historical segments. Otherwise he could have easily made it with mainstream flow and simple designing but he wasn't an ordinary filmmaker to behave like one, right? Overall, a fulfilling sequel but i just wish that Eisenstein had completed the third part and then said good-bye to us.

RATING - 7/10*

By - #samthebestest.

The very peak of genious...

[John Red · 10/10 · 13 January 2002]

After a long time of waiting I finally could lay my hands upon the well talked about "Ivan Groznyj". Having seen other known Eisenstein masterpieces prior to this, my expectations were, to say the least, very high. Did "Ivan..." match these expectations?

Yes, it did. But not just matched them. It actually surpassed these and with its magnificent elegance, fearfulness and malevolent imagery, it outshone any contenders in the field of scenography and images. Kubrick and Bergman almost falls as easy and simple in comparison to this marvelous masterpiece.

Some can claim "Ivan..." to be a over pretentious work, falling by its own weight and volume and that the deliberate overacting by Cherkasov (among others) only helps the fall. Personally I can not agree. The mere force and art of every picture in the film is a perfect collaboration and every detail has its place. Of course one will not tend to notice even half of the details after viewing the film less then four times. It is seldom that I have seen such details and such a power behind them. They work in both the physical and psychological sense.

As for the deliberate overacting I can do nothing but applaud Cherkasov as I am watching the film. Every small movement and every facial expression is planed, practiced and preformed with the utmost brilliance.

"Ivan... part 2" is also better than part 1. Mostly because Eisenstein's now very visible portrayal of Stalin and the history of the Russian leaders ever-present enslavement and despotism over their people. In part 2, all of the Soviet moralism and patriotic messages are long gone and Eisensteins dark and morbid portrayals dominate most of the film.

It is not a mystery why Stalin and the Communist part banned the film. Eisenstein's work reached its very peak in "Ivan..." and it is a real shame that he could not finish it and that he's hand were bound during the making of it. In my opinion it could have been perhaps the greatest film series of all time and I believe that even though the excellence and the sheer brilliance of Part 2, Eisenstein would have made the unfinished Part 3 just as brilliant.

Many Eyes, One Land

[tedg · 10 May 2002]

Spoilers herein.

The magic of the novel is that it creates God. It creates the place from which you observe, often participate in, and usually judge the events of the `story.'

There's more richness in the approaches than one would at first think, and novels are never about the `story,' always about this engineering of narrative. Film is more restrictive in that the narrator's sense is limited to sight (and sound), but there are also interesting opportunities available to a talented filmmaker that are not there for the writer.

There is an imposed bonding with time: the film artist controls time -- no simple power that. Some few filmmakers also play with the eye. Eisenstein (and very few others) invented a new eye.

The modern eye is based on a fluid camera, one that flies and swoops, that encircles, that slows and freezes. The modern eye finds perspectives that no human observer could. Unfortunately, few living people know how to use this eye well -- I think dePalma is the most accomplished: Sascha Vierny (recently departed) perhaps the most intelligent. But all are slaves to the technology of swooping because it can be done.

Here is a genius of another type of flying eye, the bird's eye. No, not a view looking down.

A bird has its eyes on either side of its head, so can never see the same thing with both. Humans depend on continuous motion to register scenes. Birds depend on many, sequential `stills.' Watch a bird, which is an inherently graceful animal. They are constantly jerking their heads around: getting new `shots.' This is the notion behind Eisenstein's eye.

He'll give a shot, then another from a different angle, then another and another, all from a stationary camera. No shot dwells. The camera dances as a character just as those on screen, but that's not all. He moves the lights, so that a closeup of a scene has the lights in different places. There's an intense choreography of lights and camera that are as compelling (more!) than the action shown. The rhythm of the cuts is the overwhelming clock of the experience.

Just as Ivan invents the Russian people, so too does Eisenstein invent the notion of dancing rhythm of film and thus a new narrative perspective, unique to film.

I haven´t seen anything like this before in my life!!

[anton-6 · 10/10 · 16 January 2002]

WOW!!! Such a film.First of all why did it never came out part 3 I mean it could have been the best trilogy ever made.This was made in 1945-46 but banned for 12 years.It was it because Stalin did not like it at all.Because of Ivan´s secret police and maybe because they also show Ivan as a weak person.He has no friends and that he really suffer for.As historical films I guess they are not better then others but that was not the idea either.

I could never dreamed of that the color sequence would have been as good as this.The whole plot is really superb.You can watch every visual image of this film and just see the art in it.I can´t find nothing that I do not like about these to films,it has a own style.The acting is also powerful and it fit´s in perfectly.

Part two has a very ghost-alike feeling and in the color sequence the red colors is really masterful.This was Eisenstein´s last film he died in 1948 only 50 years old.

This two epics is if you are interesting of a film a treasure.They are some of the best films I have seen because I have never seen anything like this.I recommend the criterion collection box set Eisenstein:the sound years, very much.

Rating: Ivan the terrible parts 1&2 I rate 5/5