Ivan the Terrible, Part II (1958)

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

After Joseph Stalin awarded the Stalin Award to Ivan the Terrible Part I in 1946, Sergei Eisenstein spent the last two years of his life making the second part in his expected trilogy, Ivan the Terrible Part II. This time, Stalin was more revolted and banned the film. Many believe that Eisenstein reacted to Stalin's agreement of the first film with something much more intrusive to the dictator's liking. Because of this, Ivan the Terrible Part II is a much more bizarre and unruly tapestry of images. While the first part of this two-part story is a familiar historical epic, the second seems to be a far deeper plunge into the darker elements of the human soul.

We open the piece on the court of King Sigismund of Poland. Eisenstein creates a set design with a palace floor that resembles a chess board. The various court members are all standing still as Kurbsky walks in to see the King. The shot itself seems to suggest by Eisenstein a familiar tone from the first film - that in the game of politics, everyone surrounding themselves around the throne are just as affected by the power as the ruler. In this image, it is apparent that Eisenstein is suggesting that politics is a game, one in which the ruler uses the people around him like game pieces, free to move them and push them to conflict however he sees fit. Kurbsky is also playing this game. The reason he has come to see the Polish King is to swear allegiance. Sigismund promises Kurbsky rule over Ivan's territories as long as Kurbsky exploits Ivan's absence by conquering them. After a messenger comes to warn that Ivan has returned to Moscow, Kurbsky's plans are ruined as the members of the chess pieces abandon the board. 

Ivan returns to Moscow with his special bodyguard, composed of common civilians, radically ready to defend the tsar. Ivan uses them as an 'iron shield' to protect him and his power from toppling. When he arrives, he chastises those he believes to be traitors in his absence. He proclaims that he will remove the boyars from their land thereby hindering their ability to govern altogether and replace them with men of his own choosing, whom he christens Oprichniki. He has completely removed any oppositions to his power all together. After doing this, the monk Philip comes from the back of the room to reject, stating that Ivan's power cannot combat the power of God's will. He states that Ivan is going against the long held traditions and customs of the church. 

Ivan gives reason for this behavior, as he explains to Philip that his hatred of the boyars is due to boyars' hatred of the Grand Duke of Moscow ever since he was a child. We then transition to a flashback sequence of Ivan as a child. We are shown a scene of Ivan as a child in a large dark room as current Ivan narrates that the boyars murdered his mother after his father's death. Little Ivan sits in the dark room as his mother rushes in and proclaims that she has been poisoned. Little Ivan holds his mother in his arms until she is dragged away by the boyars - leaving him alone in the dark room once again. We then cut back to current Ivan's solemn face, eyes welling up with tears. He explains that while he was alone and abandoned, the boyars handed over Russian territory to foreign enslavement. Eisenstein uses this flashback sequence to not only explain Ivan's behavior toward the boyars up until this point, but also uses this dark past to lay the expectations for Ivan's revenge later in the film. 

We are once again shown Ivan's childhood, as he sits the throne as Grand Duke. However, Eisenstein makes it very apparent that Ivan is not the one truly in power, even as he sits on a golden throne and adorned in golden ceremonial apparel. While he sits, two boyars stand behind him and the throne in frame, arguing over an official governmental decision. It is clear with this shot that power does not lie in the throne. 

Up until this point, the child Ivan has had his father die, his mother killed, and his power stripped. He reaches a point where he decides to stand up for himself and reclaim the power of his position. Back in his chambers, the young prince denies the requests of the boyars and declares that Russia will pay no one and that the coastal towns will be taken by force. The boyars laugh at him and the lead boyar even grabs him and lashes out. Little Ivan demands that he be taken away and executed. The remaining boyars realize that Ivan had regained his power and confidence as they slither away. This is the first time that Ivan stands up for himself, as Eisenstein shows the child Ivan rising, as the camera rises with him. Little Ivan exclaims that he will rule alone without the assistance of the boyars. Eisenstein then slow zooms to a close up of little Ivan as he proclaims, "I will be the tsar!" This entire flashback sequence seems to be the foundation for the entire framework of the story. Ivan had spent his entire life at battle with the power of the boyars - and for good reason. During filming of Ivan the Terrible Part II, Eisenstein was studying the psychoanalytical work of Sigmund Freud, who believe that a lot of our psychological drives as adults are caused by the traumas of childhood. Using this framework, Eisenstein gives reason and context to the extended methodical behavior of Ivan, as the viewer can identify the root cause of his vengeance and vindictive pursuit of securing his power of the boyar rulers. 

Ivan explains the circumstances of his past to the monk Philip. Ivan bears his soul to his old friend in a moment of vulnerability. He explains why he has conquered the love of the people, has surrounded himself with an iron shield, and has removed any opposition to his power. He also states this is why he also has no close friends and is completely alone. The horrors of his childhood has caused him to desire ultimate protection, from manipulation, abandonment, and even death itself. This is a dramatic turn from the framework of the first film to the second. While the first film dealt with a rise to power and its corruption of the behavior of everyone involved in that pursuit, this second film deals more with the corruption of the soul. Rather than power being the perverter of behavior, it is the psychology of human behavior that perverts power. Ivan's utter fear of being that child alone in his dark room whose mother was dragged out by sinister snakes of the government has inflicted every decision he has made. This assures his descent into paranoia and abandonment - the very thing he tries to prevent. 

As Philip leaves after Ivan denies to share authority with the boyars, Ivan then begs not as the tsar, but rather, "a friend crushed by the burden of authority." Out of fear of being completely abandoned by everyone, Ivan offers Philip the rank of 'Metropolitan Bishop of Moscow.' Philip accepts on the condition that he is allowed to plead for the innocence of those Ivan accuses, which Ivan begrudgingly accepts. This scene seems to have two ways of looking at it. For the first, it appears that the same theme from the first film repeats here - as Philip can only speak the language of power. He does not submit to the authority of Ivan, even as Ivan pleads as a friend. The only way to keep Philip's company is to allow Philip the partial authority over Ivan in certain realms. The entire relationship is warped by Philip's desire to attain more power. However, the second way to look at it is from the point of view of Ivan. Ivan cannot retain any sort of companionship due to his ultimate power, and the only bargaining chip he has left is that very power. It is in this way that the power Ivan holds is the only semblance of currency he has, at the depreciation of his human self. Ivan can no longer have friends, companions, or lovers - as his power warps the very fabric of human relationships. His power has taken away everything he ever had in his life, stripping away the very humanity of Ivan himself, leaving nothing but that power. 

Malyuta, one of Ivan's secret police, implores Ivan to reconsider caving to the will of Philip. He suggests that Ivan executes condemned men quickly before Philip can use his right to pardon them. It is in this way that Ivan and Malyuta has three of Philip's men executed. Malyuta is able to convince Ivan of this by telling him that his own vulnerability is causing him to falter in his decisions. He tells Ivan that the reason he caved was because he desired friendship, but Philip is taking advantage of that desire. Malyuta implores Ivan to not give up his power to anyone and to hold the power for himself. He proclaims that he will serve the tsar Ivan over God himself, and will kneel to Ivan's ultimate authority, even if it means going to hell. While doing this, the character bulges out one eye and closes the other. This is a motif that is shown multiple times through the story. This seems to represent the 'one eye' - meaning the secret police's power of surveillance and spy craft. It is in this moment that Ivan agrees to forsake all relationships in exchange for obedience. Malyuta represents Ivan's extended power, as he has built an entire army of spies for his disposal. It is in this way that Malyuta has become more like a dog companion than a human companion. Not only does Ivan call him a dog, but even pets him like a dog as he sits by his side. Ivan then gives him authority to be judge and executioner on his behalf, once again using power as his only form of currency. 

Ivan's other secret police member, Fyodor, helps Ivan to the conclusion that his aunt, Evfrosinia, was the one who poisoned his late wife, Anastasia. With this new information, Ivan once again realizes how alone he is - as it has now become apparent that even blood family cannot be trusted. He decides to use this information into his final descent into supremacy and isolation later in the film. 

After executing some of the boyars as traitors, the remaining boyars urge Philip to use his authority to curb Ivan's power. He agrees and confronts him in the cathedral where a miracle play is presented. After a child in the audience calls Ivan a "terrible heathen king," Ivan realizes that the love from the people has also vanished as well. The depths of loneliness Ivan sinks to seems to reach no end in this film. He has lost all companionship, his wife, his family, and now even the people have turned their back on him. Ivan proclaims that he will now behave just as everyone sees him - terrible. He has Philip seized and put on trial. With this, the boyars realize that the only way to dispose Ivan is to kill him. 

Evfrosinia, wanting her son Vladmir to take the throne in Ivan's place, hatches a plan for the novice Pyotr to stab Ivan while he leads the cathedral in prayer. Throughout these scenes, Eisenstein films various shots of the two in close-ups, allowing the audience intimate moments with the mother and son. It almost feels as if we are conceiving of Ivan's death along with them - as Eisenstein is forcing the viewer into a state of compliance. After hatching the plan, Malyuta comes in and presents a goblet to them. Eisenstein shoots him while he holds his eye open in a close up. This shot is meant to inform our notions about the secret police. With this single image, we the viewer understand that through his watchful eyes, Ivan now has knowledge of the plan for his death. Not only that, but the close up and direct looking into the camera seems to remark how the viewer is couplable along with the traitors to the throne. Ivan has grown so powerful that his secret police are not only spying on everyone in the film, but us as well.  

Ivan, using his knowledge of their plan, invites Dmitri to dine with him. The scene that ensues is unlike any of the other scenes in this two part epic. The entire scene is shot in color. During the feast, the Oprichniki, dressed in vibrant red, black, and gold, sing and dance around Ivan. The extreme use of color in this scene seems to contrast greatly to the dusty and foreboding black and white imagery of the film(s) up until this point. Ivan is drinking and celebrating and getting Dmitri to drink heavily as well. The extreme visual color style mixed with the loud and bizarre dancing of the Oprichniki seems to creating a breaking point in the film itself. Where once the film was stoic and Shakespearian, it now seems to have come undone at the seams. The exuberance and craze oozing out of the frame seems to be the epitome of Ivan's power and excess. Ivan not only has power over the people in the kingdom and all of Russia, but he has now broken the boundaries of the film altogether. The viewer is thrown into a state of mania as the dancing and colorful bodies tear apart the framework of the film. Ivan lives in such excess and power that he bends the reality of the frame to his own colorful appetites. The extensive use of red in this scene also seems to suggest some sort of ruled hellscape - with Ivan on the throne as the devil himself. There are even black swan statues that get carried in, mirroring the wedding celebration from the first film in which white swans were brought in. The switching from the celebratory white swans to these now black swans seems to suggest a different kind of celebration all together. Before, the tsar was at the high point of his life, having just become tsar and marrying Anastasia. Now, Ivan has reached the point of the ultimate downfall of his soul. His limits to excess becomes far too great, his isolation now greater than ever, and his vengeance now at a point of realization. 

Ivan gets Dmitri drunk enough to tell of his mother's plans of assassination. Ivan then tells Dmitri that he no longer wants to be tsar, and offers Dmitri adornment of the sacred garments in order to lead everyone down the cathedral for prayer. After leaving the colorful banquet, Eisenstein switches the film back to black and white. As reluctantly leading everyone, the assassin Pyotr stabs Dmitri, mistaking him for Ivan. Evfrosinia arrives believing Ivan to be dead, until realizing that is is her son adorning the tsar's garments. She holds her dead son in the same manner that Ivan held his dying mother in the earlier flashback. Dmitri's body is taken away in the way that Ivan's mother was dragged away. Ivan has now reached the point of completion in avenging the horrors of his childhood. Ivan has now ushered the same afflictions from his own past onto others. Eisenstein is able to use the visual similarity with the images to suggest a completed arc. Not only are we able to visually see Ivan's vengeance come about at last, but that the horrors of his childhood have come full circle. The inflicted terror he received is now inflicted terror on others. As mentioned before, Eisenstein's influence from Freud is notable. Eisenstein is able to affectively demonstrate behavior as a contingency. It is not from greed of power alone that enables Ivan's actions, but rather his actions are warped by the necessity to act against external events. It is in this way that Ivan is humanized - even as all his humanity now seems destitute. 

Ivan then proclaims to his loyal subjects that his power has now increased and that he plans to unify Russia even further. As he rises after saying this, the final image of the film is colorized once again. This use of color is the last identification of Ivan's ability to warp reality itself. Ivan's absolute authority dominates the very picture you're watching. Ivan has conquered every opponent to his absolute rule up to this point, and now warps the very fabric of the film screen to his colorful reign. The final proclamation of victory feels not at all like a victory - rather it leaves a bitter taste in the mouth of the viewer. We are now fully able to understand Ivan, but are not able to stop him. The film had laid the humanity of Ivan at our feet but still impresses on us that this humanity has become inconsequential. Eisenstein was known for creating conflict in his imagery to force the viewer to come to conclusions out of those conflicts. The conflict here lies between humanity and its fallible reasoning. Throughout the two films, the viewer watches all of those who come close to the seat of ultimate power become corrupted, and either enable the oppressive nature of that power or drown by its might. However, the reasoning for this corruption is all too plain - it is by necessity of safety and security. The drive towards power can be reasoned by the ultimate fear of death. The more power you possess, the better enabled you are to protect yourself from punishment and death. However, Eisenstein seems to call out the very essence of human frailty - as it appears corruption is inevitable. The inevitable corruption of the soul can be extricated by the throne of power, but it is not the throne that creates this desire. Eisenstein seems to suggest that our desires for security, companionship, love, and adoration are the corrupting natures that sink us further into the lacks of these comforts. None of the characters make it out of this film victorious, as each one is led astray by their own desires. These desires ultimately plague us and our ability to combat reality. Ivan becomes the symbol of these fallouts. His childhood trauma created the man he was - a man full of fear and insecurity, desperate to protect himself from the same hardships of reality that he could not combat as a child. But his chase for those desires hollowed him out and warped the fabric of human relationships and even warped the fabric of the film. The film conforms to the tsar's ultimate reality - using bright colors and a sounding victory horn to hollowly proclaim him the king of everything. The viewer - seeing him in all his humanity - realizes that he is the king of nothing. Ivan cannot escape the horrors of reality, as much as he tries to protect himself. Because of this, Ivan's strong hold on his inability to let go of his power and security creates a vicious world for everyone around him. It is in this way that Eisenstein's final film before his death was a last heeding warning to Stalin and Stalinism. He believed that Stalin could not protect himself forever, as much as he tried to secure himself with secret police and oppressive authority. The film was a reaching call to Stalin's humanity - warning Stalin of its potential loss. The two authoritarian despots were able to bend reality to their will based off fears and emotions that exist inside everyone. Ivan the Terrible Part II recognized this, but also recognized this was making these two leaders terrible.