Ivan the Terrible, Part I (1944)

 Sergei Eisenstein's "Ivan the Terrible, Part I"

At the beginning of 1941, Joseph Stalin had commissioned Sergei Eisenstein to make a film about his favorite political leader, the 16th century tsar, Ivan the Terrible. Stalin looked up to Ivan due to his uniting of Russia into a centralized and modern state. The famous director took up the offer to make this film. Everyone was expecting Eisenstein to defend the darker elements of Ivan, as Ivan was also known for being a ruthless despot who inflicted a campaign of terror against those who opposed him. However, Eisenstein did not use this opportunity to placate Stalin. Rather, he created a two part story critiquing Stalin and Stalinism, using Ivan as a mechanism for demonstrating the unique nature of political power and the inevitable fallouts brought about by tyranny. 

The first of this two part story, Ivan the Terrible Part I, was actually well-liked by Stalin and even won the Stalin Prize in 1946. This is because Part I depicts Ivan's rise to power and how he was able to establish himself as ultimate tsar, unite a divided Russia under his rule, and defend Russia against its various enemies. Stalin admired and identified with Ivan, seeing himself as another political ruler who united the Soviet Union under his singular rule, and assisted in defending the country against the Nazi German campaign in World War I. 

Eisenstein worked on writing Part I of Ivan the Terrible during the Nazi's invasion of the Soviet Union, causing the director to evacuate to Kazakhstan. This is where he would not only finish his screenplay, but would start filming in April 1943. Eisenstein had storyboarded the entire film and had illustrations of the way he wanted his actors to pose in the film, as well as his ideas for sets and lighting. He would make the actors stand in these positions for hours to get them acquainted with it. This, along with Eisenstein's grandiose set design and staging, resulted in the strange look and feel the film. Some view the picture as cold and inhuman - citing the way actors speak and the movements they make as being alien or silly. Others view these filming choices as brilliant - as Eisenstein creates a visual spectacle of expression. The purpose of this visual expression is to tell the story as visually as possible. One way in which this is expressed is through eye glances, as various characters communicate with each other through their wide-eyed staring. Another way is through contrasting between light and dark - characters are continuously fighting against the power held by Ivan, as well as diving into their own power-hungry ambitions; all of which are used to convey the shifting in psyches that are visually demonstrated by Eisenstein's use of shadows to express the inner emotionality of the characters. These techniques not only express the characters and their ambitions, but also influences the mind and feeling of the viewer. The viewer can derive from these images their own emotional response to abstract visual ideas. We are not meant to view the film from a neutral vantage point, but rather are swamped with the emotionality of characters. Because of this, the viewer is not meant to watch the historical events of the life of a Russian tsar. Rather, we are meant to identity the attraction, grief, loneliness, hatred, and desire that are being visually rendered. This turns the film from historical objectiveness to a reflective identification of the viewer and asks them to examine how it feels to be in the chambers of power and how anyone, including yourself can become corrupted by ambition and fueled by paranoia. 

Perhaps, this is why Joseph Stalin liked Part I of Ivan the Terrible. He saw himself in it, just like the average viewer was meant to. The ceremonious nature of it all mixed with the self-righteous attitude of Ivan towards his seemingly glorious unification of Russia under a single state rule enamored Stalin.  The surface action checks the necessary boxes for telling a historical epic.  However, between the lines of action lies moral questioning. Eisenstein allows lots of silence and space for the viewer to morally dig into the nature of power and its inevitable pitfalls. The purpose is to show you how a young and ambitious person can turn into a paranoid and manipulative tyrant given the reigns of absolute power.

The film begins with Ivan, Grand Prince of Moscow crowning himself Tsar of Russia, much to the dissatisfaction of the boyars, the imperial noblemen who represented the various ruling factions of feudalist Russia. It is in these opening moments that Ivan is given absolute power. Eisenstein films this with majesty and regal. We are shown the vast halls of the royal palace, adorned in gold and other gilt décor. Ivan even has gold coins showered over his head to not only demonstrate the historical and cultural inauguration of power, but also to visually demonstrate this to the viewer as well. Eisenstein shoots the dissatisfaction of the boyars by having their faces appear large and intimate in their frame with the camera creating Dutch angles to show a skewed and off-kilter disposition. Visually, this contrasts greatly with the symmetry of the shots of Ivan, as they seem to bring a disruptive unbalance to the visual balance of the sovereign. It is apparent that Ivan's ascension is not to the liking of everyone, as they do not want the community state of Russia to become an authoritarian one.

Ivan then marries Anastasia Romanovna and their wedding celebration is shown with lots of symmetry. Everything in Ivan's life is coming together nicely, as shown by this symmetry. The only imbalance, as mentioned before, are the unhappy boyars. That is, until it is revealed that Ivan's two best friends, Prince Andrei Kurbsky and Fyodor Kolychev, have proclaimed that they have lost favor with the tsar. Kurbsky is jealous over Ivan's marriage to Anastasia while Kolychev is unhappy with Ivan's political decisions. These are the first acts of emotional betrayal toward Ivan, as he loses two of his closest confidants. The symmetry from before is broken by the two men on either side of Ivan and Anastasia, as the camera upsets the visual union by cutting the image between the two unhappy friends - shifting the focus towards the left and right side of Ivan.

The visual balance is ruined completely when a mob of commoners storms the wedding celebration. They bring news that several boyar palaces have been set aflame. They also complain that the Tsar is being manipulated by the Tsarina's family, the Romanovs. Ivan is able to calm the crowd with a rousing political speech. This political speech seems to echo the same political pandering of contemporary politics. This political speech seems to be the mechanism for how Ivan manipulates the common people. With this, it becomes apparent for the viewer to draw parallels between historical and contemporary uses of political speech. The speech is then interrupted by Kazan envoys who have come to incite Ivan to commit suicide. Ivan sees this as an act of aggression and proclaims that Russia is now at war with Kazan. These events set the emotional complexity for the foundation of political rule. First, Ivan loses his companions to jealousy and disagreement, then he must placate the frenzied crowd of civilians, and engage with foreign transgressions. All these actions taking place underline the metrics of common political practices. The loss of trust, the distillation of propaganda, and conflict with foreign adversaries all set up the necessary elements of being a ruler; as well as laying the foundational framework for how the soul of Ivan will fall into utter isolation. 

We are then shown the 1552 seize of Kazan, in which Ivan's army buries gunpowder underneath the foreign city. The moments spent during this wartime conflict are brief, but we are shown Ivan's upset attitude over the brutality of his foreign transgressors, as they fire arrows at their own men to spare them from the torture of Ivan and his forces. Despite this, Ivan is victorious in battle. Eisenstein films Ivan with elevation and exuberance. The symphonic music matched with Ivan's booming proclamations of supremacy convey Ivan's triumph, as he believes this victory in battle firmly cements him as the one true tsar of Russia. This seems to be the high point of Ivan's confidence and rule, displayed by Eisenstein's grandiosity. 

After Ivan's triumph comes his apparent demise. Ivan has fallen ill and is being treated by holy ministers rubbing holy sacraments over his body. The boyars prepare for life without Ivan, as they scheme of ways to create a new government. On his deathbed, Ivan demands that the boyars swear allegiance to Dmitri, his infant son. The boyars turn their backs to this request as Ivan becomes appalled at their behavior and passes out. Believing Ivan to be dead, the boyars leave to begin preparations for a new political landscape. Kurbsky uses this opportunity to try and take Ivan's wife, as well as his seat on the throne. He proposes to Anastasia and announces the two of them will become the next rulers of Russia. It is then Anastasia tells Kurbsky, "Do not bury a man before he is dead." With this, Kurbsky realizes that Ivan is still alive and uses the opportunity to profess his allegiance to Dmitri in front of all the boyars. Just as he is doing this, Ivan walks into the room proclaiming that the holy sacraments worked and have brought him back to life. Ivan denounces the boyars as traitors to Russia and rewards Kurbsky's allegiance by allowing him to go to the Western border to defend Russia against the Livonians and the Poles. After his near death scenario, Ivan surrounds himself with nobodies by hiring common people to take up positions on his counsel and protective services - thereby forcing the boyars out of their political influence. The analysis of these events seem to draw parallels to Stalinism of the 20th century. While Ivan is madly trying to protect himself and his power in the film, Stalin is trying to do the same in contemporary Russia. The manipulations by the rulers convey this need to dissolve centralized bodies of power - as Stalin surrounded himself with a rotating door of constantly changing obedient yes-men just as Ivan does. Eisenstein allows the viewer the room to understand how the obsession with power and control can distort the necessities of actual power structures, and focus more on individual ascension - as with both Ivan and Stalin. 

As these events are happening, Eisenstein creates an air of atmosphere to allow the viewer to interpret the events and their mysterious confines. The sheer bizarre sequence of events creates a level of intrigue that invites the audience to look at the actions taking place with more depth and meaning. Was Ivan faking his death to call out the insubordination of the men he surrounds himself with? Was he aware of Kurbsky's manipulations and the 'reward' of sending his away to the western border actually a punishment? Did Anastasia tell Ivan about Kurbsky's betrayal and, if not, what does that mean about her ambitions? The lack of concrete meaning and understanding of the events allows the viewer to add a level of conspiracy to them. This echoes the levels of conspiracy being enacted by Ivan himself. Ivan feels that he cannot trust anyone, as everyone around him is constantly challenging his authority behind closed doors. So, not only does Ivan feel this paranoia, but the audience feels it and begins to question everything, just as Ivan does. By allowing the viewer to synchronize with the temperaments and perspective of Ivan, Eisenstein seems to divert blame from Ivan altogether. Rather than appearing like a heartless and paranoid despot, Eisenstein seems to call this behavior inevitable. Rather than subjugating the ruler to solely negative qualities, he subjugates the high position itself. Eisenstein seems to play with the notion that it is the position of absolute power that is corrupting the mind of Ivan, as well as the mind of everyone he is in contact with. The power held by the position forces Ivan to become distrustful of the people around him, as it turns out that it should. The people around Ivan are grasping for the same power and security that the Tsar does. The piece places far less blame on Ivan alone and more blame on the structure of centralized power. 

Ivan's need for power continues to grow, as he sets his sights on dominating the entire world. He sends military forces to various parts of the world, like to Queen Elizabeth's England. Eisenstein begins to visually display Ivan's decent into a power-hungry warlord. Eisenstein uses shadows in one particular scene to demonstrate this. We see the shadow of Ivan's head fill up an entire wall - using the silhouette of Ivan's head to demonstrate his growing power-hungry ego. We are also shown a shot of  the shadowy silhouette of Ivan overlooking the silhouette of the globe on his desk. The visual language of Eisenstein conveys the manic desires of an individual with singular power. It's a wonder Stalin did not pick up on this visual language - as Eisenstein makes the absolute corruption of power evident. 

While Ivan begins to face bad news from all directions, the boyars succeed in killing Anastasia - leaving Ivan completely alone. Ivan now has fallen to his lowest point of the film, while he cries out to God for punishing him in taking away his only trusted source of companionship. In the depths of despair, Ivan questions his own justification for his ability to rule. The self reflection by Ivan points to his increasingly vulnerable state. His friends abandoned him, his counsel backstabbed him, and his wife was murdered. All of this turmoil has pushed Ivan into an isolated corner, afraid of his own incapability to bring together people and cement his rule. However, it is at his lowest point that he comes to his most desperate conclusion. He must shield his rule by radical commoners. He calls on common folk throughout the country to come to his aide and be his 'iron shield' of protection. They end up coming in swarms, much to Ivan's pleasure. With the final shots of hoards of people arriving across the snowy landscapes of Russia to protect their power hungry despot, Eisenstein delivers the final catastrophe of absolute power - the corrupted mind of the collective. It is not a ruler who gives power to himself, it is not a counsel, it is not even the cultural rules brought about by tradition - rather, what gives someone absolute power is the people of the nation. With the final images, Eisenstein calls on the viewer to recognize the stability of Stalin and those in control - the viewers themselves. The final shot is perhaps the best shot of the film, as Ivan looks over those who are propping up his absolute power, as his head takes up most of the space in the frame, while his followers appears small as they travers the landscape on his behalf. The visual image creates a complete understanding of how power structures insource their power, their control, and even their egos.