Customer Reviews

Ivan the Terrible: The Film Companion (Kinofiles Film Companion)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Neuberger's book is, like my title suggests, very well-researched and insightful. It's a must-have for anyone interested in the latest research done on this film. She's very thoughtful and balanced in her approach of evaluating the film, and I think that's highly admirable.

"Ivan the Terrible" is a film that hasn't really gotten its due from American writers. It has been dismissed as "Asian" and thus "unfathomable by the Western mind" or has gotten wrapped up in Cold War attitudes (namely that Part I is pro-Stalinist and "bad" and Part II is anti-Stalinist and "good.")

Neuberger's book sweeps away all those preconceptions and looks at how the film was made (in Alma Ata during WWII), what was made, and what was prevented from being made. As a result, Eisenstein's intentions (and dangerous predicament) in handling such a project come into focus. He tried to mix sympathy for Ivan, and Ivan's historic mission, with a sense of the tragedy that Ivan's bloodletting meant for Russia and Ivan himself. Unsurprisingly, this proved too risky a trick to pull off in Stalin's USSR, and the film was taken away from Eisenstein and was shelved.

The book brought back vivid memories of Eisenstein's film, even though I haven't seen it in years. It made me want to see it again. This book is essential reading for those interested in Eisenstein, Soviet cinema and how historical figures are used by later generations. Strongly recommended.

This is an interesting book. It provides a good primer on Eisenstein and Soviet Cinema, an in-depth look at the circumstances surrounding Ivan the Terrible, including a nice synopsis of the never produced Ivan the Terrible Part III, and it has a pretty fascinating analysis of the movie itself. However I think it tries too hard to press the idea that Ivan the Terrible was actually a subversive movie. I'm a bit skeptical of that. My viewing of Ivan the Terrible shows him as a largely sympathetic character, and the author of this book at times stretches her interpretations to meet her thesis. I think this is largely because she starts from the position that Eisenstein was not a strong Communist and not a big supporter of the Soviet state at this time. That's a bit questionable in my mind. Eisenstein's writings tend to show that he was very supportive of the Communist cause, even if his views on the philosophy itself were unorthodox, and he was not afraid of violence in the Soviet cause. Potemkin for example, is a very violent movie, but the violence is shown pretty positively. When analyzing Eisenstein and his movies we must remember who he is, what his personal setting was, and who his audience is. There are definitely subversive moments to Ivan the Terrible, but we must remember that in the Soviet state violence in defense of the cause was a given and the violence in Ivan the Terrible would not have shocked the Soviet audience. It is also interesting to note that by Eisenstein's recollections, Stalin's problems with the film was not that Ivan was too violent, but that he was too indecisive. I'm not saying the film is necessarily sympathetic to Stalin, but rather it is as the character is, divided and confused about its position towards state violence even in defense of the great cause. And I think that might have been Eisenstein's own dilemma throughout his life