Ivan the Terrible, Part I

Someone could have a psychoanalytic field day with this movie, lol. I'll start off with my notes from that. Ivan's beard=long and pointy. At first, when he faked his death (and I thought he'd actually died at that point) I figured the erect beard, standing even in his death, meant that he would still have power...even in his death. Then! Upon the revelation that he'd faked his death, I took it to mean that it represented the fact that he was still alive.

Eisenstein seemed to use a lot of choreography in this film. Prof Isham mentioned it today when they were all filing into the room where Ivan was on his deathbed. I first noticed it at the coronation, though, the goblets and the swans were all very choreographed. I did enjoy the music very much, and also the ornateness of the costumes.

There were a couple of biblical references. At one point Ivan is standing on the mountain, by his throne, and the sun is shining down, silhouetting him- this seemed almost iconic to me. Later in the film, they are told to deny their father and mother, and serve only the Tsar (which is what the disciples are told to do in the gospels). Also, there is Alyoshka who loves his motherland so much he gives his only son.

The acting style WAS very kabuki. The use of eyes for expression, and the calculated, almost robotic movements, definitely made it more theatrical than cinematic.

I noticed Hamlet parallels right off. I actually found myself constantly comparing Kurbsky to both Hamlet AND Horatio. There's one point where Kurbsky is between Anastasia and Efrosinia, choosing between light and dark. This leads him to a room, filled with candles and more iconic symbols= definite parallel to the setting for Hamlet's soliloquy. In fact! Even Kurbsky's soliloquy parallels! He asks "Which road should I travel?" where Hamlet asks, "To be, or not to be."

Now, I just have to touch on the Staritskayas. I thought Efrosinia was a man for the first half, and Vladimir was a woman, lol. Then, I kept comparing them to two fictional figures:

Vladimir:
couldn't find any pics of him from the movie, but seriously-



Efrosinia:




(speaking of, note to self: buy Thief of Baghdad)



Coincidentally, yesterday morning I was having breakfast with a friend at Franks Diner (as I do every Tuesday/Thursday...and if no one has been there yet, I highly suggest you go at some point) and we, along with one of the waiters, had been discussing modern art and how we're not really fans of it, and that insanity spreads like syphilis. My friend's reasoningagainst modern art is this: "If you put a rooster on a box, and it defecates, how is that art!?!"

There is one scene in Ivan Grozny, in the cathedral, where there is, in fact, a statue- a bronze rooster upon a white marble "box." I told my friend this, saying only that it was in a Russian Orthodox cathedral. His response:

If I may. I believe that the director of the fine film you have mentioned was trying to tell us, those who have not contracted insanity syphilis, something. If we think of the director's choice of capturing a bronze rooster on a piece of marble as mockery, it is possible to understand the symbol as showing the insignificance and gaudy waste of resources that extravagant cathedrals represent. Perhaps the rooster could be seen as the House of Romanov and the marble as the Russian people upon which a corrupt and petulant Tsar struts? Nevertheless, modern art still sucks.

I was just impressed with his take on it.

Finally, there was the part with the eyes. The thought that someone is always watching you. I realize now the significance of it, but yesterday...
the forced opening of the eye just reminded me of the nose tap from "The Sting."