超多的面部特寫,高顏值的演員,鑲金嵌寶的服裝,氣勢恢宏的音樂,外景鏡頭非常考究。演伊凡的演員擺POSE的技能逆天了,笑點是俄羅斯的宮殿門象狗洞,人人得以彎腰側(cè)身通過,直到最后皇嬸策劃教堂行刺時我才發(fā)現(xiàn)皇帝的這個親屬是女的。
日丹諾夫說愛森斯坦把伊凡雷帝塑造了一個神經(jīng)衰弱的人。而斯大林認為:伊凡雷帝是一個極其殘酷的人,表現(xiàn)他的殘酷是可以的。但應當說明為什么要殘酷。伊凡雷帝的一個錯誤就是沒有徹底鏟除五大封建家族。如果他消滅了這五大家族,那就根本不會出現(xiàn)混亂時期了。而伊凡雷帝不管是處死誰,過后總是后悔不已,懺悔個沒完。在這方面妨礙他的是上帝。應當更果斷一些。
斯大林說:你們把沙皇演成了一個優(yōu)柔寡斷的人,就像是哈姆雷特??偸莿e人告訴他應當做什么。而不是他自己作出決定。 沙皇伊凡是一個偉大而英明的統(tǒng)治者,如果把他同路易十一作比較(你們讀過有關(guān)路易十一為路易十四奠定專制制度基礎(chǔ)的書嗎?),那么伊凡雷帝同路易簡直不可同日而語。伊凡雷帝的英明之處在于,他始終站在民族的立場上,不允許外國人進入自己的國家,從而防止了外來影響向國內(nèi)滲透。
Eisenstein’s two-part historical biopic of Ivan IV of Russia (1530-1584), it is his swan song, commissioned by none other than Joseph Stalin himself. Intended as a trilogy, the project’s third installment was scrapped after Part II enraged Stalin (why? the behind-the-scene stories are destined to be more appealing than the actual films) and was subsequently banned, which only came out of the woodwork in 1958, 10 years after Eisenstein’s death, and 5 years after Stalin’s.
Viewed today, this two features are testaments to Eisenstein’s absolute geniuses in filmmaking, shot when the Soviet Union took a heavy toll of WWII, he must contend with limited funds and resources to map out such a juggernaut of an enterprise. You can call the eventual fruit ahistorical or irreverent, but not unimpressive, and we can see on the screen where Eisentein splashes out, it is not in the battlefield action, or exterior settings (both are condensed to a minimum, and Part II is essentially a chamber piece, which never ventures into the open), but in the fineries and decors on display, those lavishing costumes (head gears, silk robes, ruffs galore!) are kaleidoscopic with their intricate designs and characteristic patterns, in Part II, when primitive colorization is applied to the revelry sequences, you are able to gape at the fabric’s original texture and chroma, in a word, you must trust a gay man’s dress sense, that is a given.
Technically, Eisenstein is a maestro of shadow play, which is amazingly deployed to parallel the power shifting between Ivan, the founder of Tsardom of Muscovy, who unites the country and the discontent Russian boyars, their schism lies in whether power should be autocratic or shared by those selected few. Ivan’s strongest ally is the masses, and his anti-clerical disposition is emphatically validated by the Eastern Orthodox Church’s callousness. It is not difficult to understand why Stalin personally identified himself with Ivan the ruler.
Also facial expressions has never been so vividly recorded like this, Eisenstein’s close-ups are highly theatrical under the lighting’s manipulation, and sometimes, bolstered by dramatically contrasted compositions. Those faces are mannered but expressive, to register one single emotion (frowning, glowering, darting, staring) at a time. Their purposefulness conveys a heaviness as if those characters are driven by monomania, the expressions don’t belong to real humans, but tableaux vivants heightened in emotionality, to ram their significations down our throats. All I can say is, it is an approach of expression, one man’s meat can be another man’s poison though.
Performance-wise, the cast is superb, despite their method is obsolete. An aquiline Nikolay Cherkasov reigns over the titular role with both flair and variation, his Ivan isn’t defined merely by “terrible”, if you get the preconception that Ivan is a despot, which the films certainly do not concur with, Ivan is an orphan with a grudge, he is ruthless, nearly paranoid, but before that, he has also been consumed by loneliness, betrayal and bereavement (the allegiance test when he is apparently in extremis is a high point in Part I), Cherkasov downplays Ivan’s menace, but highlights his self-importance and grandstanding comportment, and on a minor note of the heavy makeup, how funny his mustache seems to grow out of his nostrils.
Among the secondary players, Lyudmila Tselikovskaya is a beatific Tsarina Anastasia in Part I; Mikhail Zharov, as Malyuta Skuratov, Ivan’s foe-to-friend crony, is remarkable for his canine wiles, especially in Part II; and Mikhail Nazvanov makes Prince Andrew Kurbsky a contradiction of wills and desires, he can look stupid but act not so, or otherwise, there is glint in his eyes, which can be easily lost with all the bloviating, orating and speechifying. Then, a dazed, namby-pamby Pavel Kadochnikov makes Vladimir of Staritsa (Ivan’s cousin) a competent fool, the prototype of a mommy’s boy, but surprisingly, free of mockery, when he is struck down, you just feel sorry for him, accursed by his blue blood. Lastly, as Vladimir’s mother and Ivan’s aunt, Efrosinia of Staritsa, the arch-villain, Serafima Birman is terrific in both films, her saturnine venom is spilt all over the screen, but when she chants, it is also weirdly affecting, almost facetious, yes, credit also should be accorded to Prokofiev’s grand, emotive score, it helps to hold the whole nine yard together, and cues you to adjust the gravity quotient, aka. how serious the matter you are watching means to be.
While both films are equally eloquent and uniformly reflect Eisenstein’s mastery, Part II has a slight edge with the colored segments that grant you a taste of what he can do with colors, and it is mad as hell, oversaturated and kinetic, as if you were spelunking in the hellmouth, these two films are revelations, even if you are not particularly into that aforementioned approach, Eisenstein is always a veritable force to be reckoned with.
referential entries: Eisenstein’s BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN (1925, 8.4/10); Laurence Olivier’s HAMLET (1948, 8.3/10); Mikhail Kalatozov’s THE CRANES ARE FLYING (1957, 8.6/10).
English Title: Ivan the Terrible, Part I
Original Title: Ivan Groznyy
Year: 1944
Country: Soviet Union
Language: Russian
Genre: Biography, Drama, History
Director/Screenwriter/Editing: Sergei M. Eisenstein
Music: Sergei Prokofiev
Cinematography: Andrey Moskvin, Eduard Tisse
Cast:
Nikolay Cherkasov
Lyudmila Tselikovskaya
Serafima Birman
Mikhail Nazvanov
Mikhail Zharov
Amvrosi Buchma
Mikhail Kuznetsov
Pavel Kadochnikov
Andrei Abrikosov
Aleksandr Mgebrov
Rating: 8.1/10
English Title: Ivan the Terrible, Part II
Original Title: Ivan Groznyy. Skaz vtoroy: Boyarskiy zagovor
Year: 1958
Country: Soviet Union
Language: Russian
Genre: Biography, History
Director/Screenwriter: Sergei M. Eisenstein
Music: Sergei Prokofiev
Cinematography: Andrey Moskvin, Eduard Tisse
Editing: Esfir Tobak
Cast:
Nikolay Cherkasov
Serafima Birman
Pavel Kadochnikov
Mikhail Zharov
Amvrosi Buchma
Mikhail Kuznetsov
Andrei Abrikosov
Aleksandr Mgebrov
Mikhail Nazvanov
Vladimir Balashov
Vsevolod Pudovkin
Pavel Massalsky
Ada Vojtsik
Rating: 8.2/10
這部電影向人們交代了沙皇伊凡剛剛成為俄羅斯統(tǒng)治者時的故事,如加冕典禮以及和Anastasia Romanovna的婚禮;他努力維護自己的國家,與來自內(nèi)外兩方的陰謀詭計做斗爭。伊凡是俄國歷史上公認的暴君,但影片把他塑造成人民的偉大領(lǐng)袖。
怎么講!感覺是炸天的!明明一臉嚴肅,然而實在有趣!被那些故作正經(jīng)(實際上確實正經(jīng))的真貂真皮真金白銀嚇懵,那些精心構(gòu)筑的畫面,夸張的打光(有的影子好像不是打光打出來的)讓我完全在跳戲。那些禍心包藏的情節(jié),又讓我不停跳回來。啊,十足宮廷連續(xù)劇的節(jié)奏,故事其實不太重要。
當作學習俄羅斯歷史了,光影美,雷帝的演員還是蠻俊俏的。。。至于表演嘛想默片,開口一唱歌就嚇尿了。。。還有突然之間的彩色片是怎么回事?
大銀幕看4k修復的愛森斯坦,在還沒有多機位的年代很了不起,面部特寫和陰影處理尤其深刻。可是我受不了這平鋪直敘的故事,而且雜耍蒙太奇呢?!
“蒙太奇”源考。在“慈父”注視下誕生劃時代影史傳奇,這注定了在劇情上不可能有多大的突破的顛覆,但是這絲毫不能掩沒其在鏡頭語言上的顛覆性創(chuàng)新??紤]到其未全部完成,尤其是那場伊凡四世人生最高潮的弒子大戲還未出現(xiàn),不能不說是一種遺憾。
雖然不乏凹造型的痕跡(凹得超美),但是愛森斯坦的不同景別神奇的組合構(gòu)圖、多處的高反差打光近景與特寫同演員瞪眼式默片表演,聯(lián)合他獨有的剪輯方式放大了構(gòu)圖象征意義和渲染效果,這讓事件的描繪抹去了敘述上的僵化反而增強了人物的內(nèi)在精神。
就電影本身來說,敘事太拖沓,戲劇沖突也不明顯,溫溫吞吞,演到第二集時好多人都撤了,但是鏡頭和光影的運用又太讓人著迷,黑白色調(diào)充實著沙皇高冷的孤獨感,就憑這一點足以撐起一部巨著。。。
是的,它的場景設(shè)計很牛,它的攝影很棒,幾個斜線分割的構(gòu)圖和墻上無處不在的影子足夠好幾個教授混一輩子飯吃了。但我就是不喜歡這種樣板戲美學!傅滿洲的造型不知道有沒有參考過這部里的伊凡。
北京電影節(jié)上有幸在大銀幕看了此片,堪稱宏大敘事的頂峰之作!我并不覺得夸張和緩慢。無論光影、造型、構(gòu)圖都極有范兒,對后世的史詩電影、傳記片影響巨大——國產(chǎn)老片中英雄人物總仰頭30度即來源與此……沒想到主題竟是圍繞貴族與平民展開的。戰(zhàn)爭場面及最后平叛都拍得氣勢了得,充滿莊嚴感!
我其實對格林納威拍愛森斯坦搞基更感興趣,至于他拍的電影,實在是??
那個影子用得,華麗麗的。不過感覺幾個人的表演,還是有點默片的痕跡哦。
歷史宮闈片,表演上的舞臺戲劇感很強,據(jù)維基日文詞條說可能受到歌舞伎風格影響(1928年有赴莫斯科演出)。對應真實歷史,17歲加冕稱沙皇,22歲喀山攻城戰(zhàn),34歲離開莫斯科,主演按時間順序逐漸增加胡須長度和妝容,但在第一部后半段長胡花白的造型感覺遠遠老于34歲。談?wù)搶ν獠呗詴r,巨大的身影投射在墻上指向地球儀。眾叛親離后退居亞歷山大羅夫村,伊凡四世的頭部近景特寫,側(cè)望著大遠景里來效忠的蕓蕓民眾。豆瓣條目現(xiàn)在用的海報圖上人物不是伊凡雷帝本人,而是叛徒,不知道怎么選出來的。
#BJIFF第十一場#難以想象這是一部艾森斯坦的電影,全片沒有任何形式上的突破,并且依舊沿襲三十年代的濃烈舞臺劇風格,人物表演夸張,實在是無感
第一部:青年加冕與籠罩的貴族惡意。。。征喀山戰(zhàn)役。。。生?。ㄕ孢€是假)驗貴族。。。以退為進退到亞歷山大村。。。
看電影截圖覺得美術(shù)很贊!加上導演瘋癲的發(fā)型吸引了我!就破天荒的看了平時不喜歡看的政史軍事題材??上Ш貌蝗菀渍业降馁Y源居然是國語配音!一口一個“皇上”叫得太出戲了!最近看的電影多是老片。畫面的每一幀都在追求美,對比下來,現(xiàn)在的電影過于商業(yè)化,真心談不上美。且越看越覺得以前的人都有股強大的精神力量,眼里有靈,深淵一般的眼珠子黑洞洞?,F(xiàn)在的人大概被物質(zhì)填得太滿,所以精神力量已蕩然無存。
愛森斯坦的《伊凡雷帝》本打算拍3部的,可惜第三部未能完成。在對伊凡雷帝的解釋上他從?。常障=鸬臍v史劇《鮑里斯·戈都諾夫》中汲取了靈感,而在結(jié)構(gòu)上則借鑒并超越了世界經(jīng)典藝術(shù)家們的經(jīng)驗。主演尼克拉·契爾卡索夫也是《亞歷山大.涅夫斯基》的主演,這一部對角色的塑造上更見功力。
9.3/10。①伊凡雷帝登基到短暫退離莫斯科后人民求他回去的故事。講了他規(guī)劃宏圖、愛妻死去、平定貴族內(nèi)亂等劇情。整個電影可以看成是對斯大林的指代;②表現(xiàn)伊凡雷帝「愛民的偉岸君王」的視聽設(shè)計包括:光影的明暗對比(比如加冕典禮那場伊凡雷帝周圍是明,其他地方都是暗)、伊凡雷帝投在墻上特別大的影子(大罵那些貴族然后坐下來擺弄棋盤那段)、結(jié)尾伊凡雷帝“大”的面部特寫充滿感情地看著“小”的遠處人群的構(gòu)圖;③電影以大量表現(xiàn)主義的光影/面部特寫,配合上高水平構(gòu)圖和夸張的表演,營造了一種高度抓馬的氣氛(手法上同《圣女貞德蒙難記》),但運鏡、剪輯節(jié)奏、甚至配樂卻很緩慢,導致視聽的整體觀感破裂而錯位。其實換成默片那些設(shè)計就不抓馬了,只能說愛森斯坦對有聲片的視聽的掌握不夠到位。
愛森斯坦晚年作品。和《戰(zhàn)艦波將金號》不同,這部作品突出的是舞臺劇表演風格和光影顯著的攝影風格。以及對暴君伊凡四世的表現(xiàn)。似乎在影射或是吹捧斯大林。這馬屁也算是拍在馬腿上了。表演風格仍然停留在默片上,過于夸張和戲劇腔。看完第二部和背景資料再回味。
晚期的愛森斯坦放棄了成名作時期那樣激進炫目的革命化表現(xiàn)形式(蒙太奇)。在這部電影中非常平穩(wěn)地掌握攝影機,著力點在于室內(nèi)場景的光影呈現(xiàn)。多個極度夸張的影子設(shè)計,大量的面部特寫鏡頭使得本片頗有一種表現(xiàn)主義的味道。敘事上還是沒有擺脫默片時代的習慣,不夠精煉。
應該算主旋律電影,歌頌統(tǒng)治者,有聲片用默片式表演也很違和,更別提滿到爆炸的配樂,耳朵要聾了。只能說審美極好,劇情、表演麻麻。