Tsar
Tags: violence

Plot synopsis:
The film is set between the years 1566 and 1569 during the era of the Oprichnina and the Livonian War. The film starts from the time when the Russian Orthodox Metropolitan Afanasii has died and Tsar Ivan IV has summoned his childhood friend, Hegumen Philip Kolychev of Solovetsky Monastery. The film is divided into four parts.
1. The prayer of the Tsar. The Tsar is praying in his cell and asked the Lord to help him in his business. Meanwhile, Hegumen Philip arrives in Moscow, and on the way rescues a girl Masha, who is fleeing from a group of guardsmen. Receiving the Hegumen when he arrives, the Tsar invites him to become Metropolitan of Moscow, but Philip initially declines. The Hegumen meets his nephew, who is leaving for the wars and urges the Hegumen to flee from the Tsar, as those around him cannot survive. The Tsar returns to Philip, gives Masha an icon of the Mother of God, and persuades Hegumen Philip to become Metropolitan. Philip, witnessing the horrors being committed by the Oprichniki, urges the Tsar to show mercy to his enemies.
2. The Tsar at War. Metropolitan Philip's nephew fights in a bloody battle against the Poles and Lithuanians at Polotsk. There is also Masha, who has escaped from the Tsar and brought the icon. Thanks to the icon, the bridge collapses under the Lithuanian cavalry. Polotsk governor returns to Moscow, but news arrives that the Lithuanian and Polish forces went around to the rear of the city and that the Governor himself surrendered the town. The enraged Tsar desires to execute all the Governor's men. Metropolitan Philip defends them, which also triggers the wrath of the Tsar. The governor is arrested, and Malyuta Skuratov brands his chest.
3. The Tsar's Wrath. The Tsar orders Metropolitan Philip to judge the governor, and the court convicts the governor's men of treason. Realizing that the defendants are speaking the truth, Metropolitan Philip refuses to sign the death warrant. Meanwhile, the Tsar prepares their execution: he pits them one on one against a bear. Killing two commanders, bear attacks Kolycheva. At this point, Masha runs into the arena with the icon and tries to stop the bear. It kills Masha with his paw. Metropolitan Philip, horrified by the senseless brutality of the Tsar, seeing the futility of their attempts to persuade the Tsar to give up violence, enters the arena, and raises the icon. During a service at the Church, he refuses to bless the Tsar, who furiously strips the Metropolitan of his rank and forces him to watch the execution of his nephew on the rack. The Tsar decides to pardon Philip himself, but forever exiles him to a monastery, where he is treated as an ordinary prisoner, shackled, deprived of even water.
4. The Tsar's fun. Heinrich von Staden builds a "torture camp", which is planned to convene the people to festivals and watch the torture of prisoners. During the inspection, the Tsar's jester Vassian quotes the Book of Revelation, comparing Maria Temryukovna with the Whore of Babylon, for which the Tsar burns him at the stake. Meanwhile, in the monastery Philip's chains are supernaturally loosened, and he receives the gift of healing and foresight. He warns Archbishop Pimen that they will be accused in his death. Philip encourages them to run and save themselves. However, the abbot, and almost all the monks stay with him. The Tsar arrives, but Philip again accuses him of horrific violence and refuses him a blessing. On the orders of the Tsar, Skuratov strangles Philip with his own hands. Despite the order to hand over Philip's corpse, the monks bury Philip in a wooden church and lock it; guardsmen burn the church with the monks inside.
Final Scene - The Tsar waits for the beginning of his tortures. Despite the order to assemble, no one does. "Where are my people?" - asks the Tsar. Then he prays the Jesus Prayer then again asks - "Where are my people?"

Review: An impressive work, for someone acquainted with Russian culture and history.
The acting is superb and the reality imposed by a bloody Russian King is overwhelming; as well his evil deeds were unfolded in the movie respecting all the historical facts.
Its really marvelous to encounter in the movie the Christian orthodox struggle with the absolute power of the King and his outlawed deeds.
If u really want to see what church meant in Russian past you are really invited to watch the movie, I can assure you it will shock your mind.
Pawel Lungin seems to agree with the previous and paints a terrifying portrait of his persona with the ultimate counterpoint in Metropolitanate Philipp, the religious overseer of Moscow and the Church.
In this tale of madness, torture and dementia the innocent will perish, but will stick with their ideals, while the cruel remain with only eternal damnation that awaits them...Both main actors Pyotr Mamonov (Ivan) and Oleg Yankovskiy (Philipp) are a real tour de force.
They are absolutely unbelievably good in the parts they play and especially Mamonov gives possibly the best performance I have seen in years.
And yet with some much going for the movie in the actor department I felt massively under-awed by the direction of this movie.The story never really flows or builds and essentially history passes this movie by.
In the end most is left to imagination or historical knowledge, as the movie merely suggests several key moments in time, but all this happens off screen.
In the end you never really understand the changes in Ivan and the engulfing madness.
Within several minutes you see Ivan turn from a god-fearing fanatic claiming all his deeds are in the name of God and for his glory into someone claiming that ruling a country takes place outside of God. No credible build-up was really given to such a sudden change of views.All in all the madness is inconsistent and after watching the movie I feel like I know less about Ivan than before watching it.
We all know Ivan the Terrible was a mad tyrant, and many know that Philip was a Saint.
The film shows little more, and little depth to Ivan, and none to any other character beyond Philip.
The film implies all the churchmen were saints, when in fact many (understandably) collaborated with Ivan.
The parallel with Stalin is obvious, but somehow the greater distance in time makes the message more abstract and therefore more powerful.The metropolitan is slow to grasp the depth to which his childhood friend has sunk, but when he does the way in which he stands up to Ivan in word and deed is both moving and inspiring.
Best seen in the context of Russian film history.
I checked out the "Hollywood Reporter's" review of the showing in Cannes, and the first line of that review corresponds to the first comment I would post myself, relating it to Tarkovsky's "Andrei Rublev"(1967) and Eisenstein's "Ivan the Terrible." (1944)While the title of the film is "Tsar," the personality of the Metropolitan Fillip, played by Oleg Yankovsky, really dominates.
Like Tarkovsky's "Rublev" Fillip attempts to find spiritual meaning in the harshness of his times, and Ivan at first come across as an object of pity to whom the church father attempts to give spiritual guidance.
The film presents of trinity of "Holy Fools" (Iurodyvye), who traditionally speak prophetic truth to power - in the persons of Fillip, the little girl, an the jester (whose revelations of Ivan's cruelty are for the film-viewers alone).
Ivan tells Fillip to speak the truth to him, but becomes progressively more opposed to the holy truth and therefore more and more "terrible."Stalin found confirmation for the "great man" approach to history in Eisenstein's earlier historical epics, but Eisenstein's "Ivan the Terrible,Part II" was banned when the historical necessity argument gave way to grotesque depiction of the oprichniki and the murder of a young pretender to the throne.
The magnificence of the regal costuming and sets do not startle the viewer with pageantry, but rather offer a grotesque contrast between the mask of wealth on display in the presence of masses violently spilled blood.What may appear as "straightforward storytelling" is in many ways a polemic with historical narratives of the past.
Ivan is most terrible in the power that he wields through insanity and belief in his role as God's appointed servant..
The famous Russian producer Pavel Loungin paints a grim - though realistic - picture of the brutal rule of Ivan the Terrible, the first self-proclaimed Tsar of Russia.
The depth and sophistication of the movie are obvious to everyone familiar with Russia's bitter history (and, sadly,) present.
On top of that, the critical parts in the movie are played by the outstanding actors Oleg Yankovsky (metropolital Philip Kolychev) - one can only wonder how a 21 century actor can portray a saint and Peter Mamonov - a chilling representation of the maniacal Tsar Ivan, who does not give you a minute of rest throughout the movie.
The movie is surely a landmark in filming history.
I agree completely with the author of "Sergei Eisenstein honored" in calling this film the third part of Eisenstein's intended trílogy of the most debatable of all Russian tzars.
Eisenstein had planned a third film to his great "Ivan the Terrible" project but never came to fulfill it since already the second part was forbidden by Stalin, and Eisenstein died before Stalin.
However, this film would have satisfied Eisenstein completely as a fulfillment of his last cinematic dreams.Of course, it has flaws.
Pyotr Mamonov is not quite convincing as the tzar and does not stand up to a comparison with the incomparable Nikolai Cherkasov as the leading actor in Eisenstein's masterpieces.
While Eisenstein's films are monumentally theatrical with every scene a masterpiece of composition and every face unforgettably impressive in pictorial portraiture, Mamonov as the tzar is too much of a caricature and is overdoing it in a grotesque way that falls out of the personage that the tzar really was.
This twisted interpretation of the life on the throne is worsened by the revolting presence of the fool, who pushes the exaggerations far over the top of any credibility.All this grotesqueness, which really was part of Ivan's reign but only one side of it, is wonderfully balanced by Oleg Yankovsky as the metropolitan and childhood friend of Ivan, who the tzar desperately appeals to for friendship, which his ways make impossible.
Here you have the full integrity of a real man who just can't compromise with his conscience and sense of right and wrong, while Ivan is way beyond any hope of insight in this matter.
The metropolitan dominates the film, and the film is a masterpiece mainly because of him.Of course, there is very much you miss of Ivan's other aspects as a tzar.
Neither Eisenstein nor Lungin included the episode of the slaughter of his son Ivan, and concentrating exclusively on the personal relationship between the tzar and the metropolitan, the film feels more episodic like a rhapsody than like an accomplished epic.
Impressive fragment of Russian history, it is, in fact, a parable.
And the ambition of Pavel Lungin to say never death truth.Like a diamont, this movie has many faces.
Different impressions, heavey images, a new Mamonov, a short travel in history book to remind details about central character.
Film 'Tsar' made some social resonance in Russia,- dividing people who do not accept film because of huge mortality and deaths in film(it's true - 'Tsar' is dark and cruel) and those who see the human Drama in face of Tsar Ivan, drama of the governor - is really not the best in Lungin's biography,though the best in my.
and Im thanking life and faith to let me do my job as good as i could)))) Also i've got lots of new friends,- among them Tom Stern -the cinematographer of 'Tsar'.- really good American,- i took a look on his projects with Clint Eastwood, and opened this to brave Americans for myself..
portrait not of Ivan Vasilievich but for a manner, an usual manner of East to use the authority with high force and profound fear.
Pyotr Mamonov gives a strange, cold, unpredictable, vulnerable Ivan.
a Tsar looking for himself, lost in good intentions and noble projects.
Well, everything is painfully wrong here - choice of Pyotr Mamonov as a Tsar Ivan The Terrible is the first and worst error - he just is a mere buffoon and horrid performer, overplaying almost every aspect, and instead of a paranoid tyrant we see a psychotic idiot with whimsical ticks.
The great late Oleg Yankovski as Fillip is pale and bland, while Ivan Okhlobystin as a Tsar's jester is a simple clown with no merit.
"Nothing destroys authority more than the unequal and untimely interchange of power stretched too far and relaxed too much" (Francis Bacon Sr).Pavel Lungin's film, promoted at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival, absorbingly develops some aspects of the reign of tsar Ivan called the terrible which spanned a considerable period of time in the 16th century Russia.
It rather occurs to create an image of a ruler who himself stretches his power too far and destroys his authority.
Yet, a viewer might be led to wrong assumptions through the title: it is not solely a film that should be called 'a tsar' but rather 'a ruler and his voice of conscience.'The director manages to develop the figure of the ruler (powerfully played by Pyotr Mamonov) and his 'prophet' the voice that helps him turn to God, that is Philip Kolychev (played by Oleg Yankovskiy).
Philip, for some time a metropolitan, reveals to us the true face of the ruler who is power obsessed and a man rather weak innerly but very much disguised as a powerful tyrant.
Metropolitan Philip is a man of God who confronts the never ending conflict: church and state.
This relation between the tsar and his metropolitan seems to evoke above anything else, seems to be a key drama of the entire story.Divided into four parts, THE PRAYER OF THE TSAR, THE TSAR AT WAR, THE TSAR'S WRATH, THE TSAR'S FUN, the movie sometimes seems to skip continuity.
The dramatic resonance of the story is intensified by the period the action is set (the 1560s), the Oprichnina and Livonian War, a particularly cruel time that marks the Russian history with notorious cruelty.
While Eisenstein's movie sometimes seemed to glorify the courage and power of Ivan (especially in the first part accepted so powerfully by Stalin), this movie marks the clear contrast between the cruel ruler and men of God.But the movie's flaw lies in the fact that it does not really build upon some psychological image of a man, some sophisticated depiction but rather divides the characters into the good and the bad ones.
Except for the Oprichnina who are, naturally, all bad, the pinnacle of that approach is Maria Temryukovna, Ivan's second wife (not depicted by Eisenstein), the tsar's evil genius and seen as a 'whore of Babylon' having fun at the cruelty.TSAR is a film worth seeing as a slightly different approach, perhaps most, however, because of excellent performances.
The plot of the movie covers a short term of the rule of the Russian Tsar Ivan the Terrible during one of the most controversial periods of Medieval Russia – Oprichnina.
The Tsar, feeling lonely, rushing about his obsession of the forthcoming end of the world and Judgment Day, being on the verge of insanity called for the Solovetsky Monastery abbot Phillip Kolychev, his childhood friend.
Being shocked by the bloodthirstiness of Tsar's party, Phillip bravely tells Ivan the Terrible the truth.
Wrathful Tsar put the metropolitan into disgrace, exiled him and later killed secretly, as well as Phillip's nephew and his fellow warlords for the false accusation of yielding up Polotsk to Sigismund.In my opinion this movie is more likely a simple narration without any deep moral message in it, being less successful work of Pavel Lungin then previous "Ostrov".
Pavel Lungin's flawed power house film is more a film for the head for the heart-then again it grabs you by the throat and squeezes.Nominally the story of Tsar Ivan (the terrible) battling with his Metropolitan (head of the church).
The film is a battle between vengeance and mercy, its an allegory between belief and certainty, a reflection of self vision and the vision of mankind, a look at the Stalin years in Russia, and the madness of rulers in general.Its a kick in the chest.More interested in making a point the film is more an essay or fantasia or poem rather then straight narrative.
There is a plot, its just that some of the details are lost and people represent things more than are characters, the Jester is Satan, the little girl grace...
Unlike some people in modern Russia I am not a Monarchist, which means my view towards the historic Russian Monarchy is mostly negative.But the way Tsar Ivan (Vasilyevich) Groznyy, called the "terrible" in the Western world, was portrayed in this film is just absurd.
The years in the film were 1565-66, Ivan IV was born in 1530, which means he should have been about 35 years old.
Although the actor playing Ivan in the film was no younger than 50 years of age.
Ivan in the film is too old.And that is only part of the problem of the film.
Events portrayed in the film are either in the wrong year or simply never happened.
The film presents the year 1565 as disastrous for Russia, Poland is successfully conquering the country and numerous military disasters have led Ivan to believe the Russian people are turning against him.Ivan himself is presented as a delusional psychopath that spends his time sitting alone speaking to "god".
And as the film progresses more and more people are killed or tortured in cruel ways, Ivan even instructs his men to build a massive torture exhibit where hundreds of people presumably were to be tortured at the same time.By the end of the film Ivan has become an Anti-Christ figure, his men are shown burning people alive and they visibly enjoy it.
I have a suspicion that the actual Church was involved in the production of this film.It seems like only a Polish take over of Moscow can save Russia from the cruel tyrant.Ivan IV was not an angel, but he was not a psychopath like the one shown in the film.
He could do cruel things, but today Russia owes its vast territory and influence thanks to the actions of Ivan Groznyy.
What can I say but that Eisenstein would be honored to see what this movie represents.In fact, and in my own personal view, if Eisenstein were alive these days, he would probably have filmed this movie the same way.The light and shadow play, evident homage to Sergei Eisenstein, the tenuous colors, always kept at very low intensity, not to make it to vivid or bright, but clearly reminiscent of the only color palette included in the Ballroom scene in "Ivan the Terrible", add all the glory and respect to the lineage of its two predecessors.I would even go further.
This can be considered the third chapter, or the third installment to "The Boyar's Plot" and "Ivan the Terrible" by Eisenstein, concluding thus the intended trilogy.The actors are all excellent, particularly the two principal figures, Pyotr Mamonov as Ivan (whose looks strikingly resemble his predecessor, Nikolai Cherkasov), and as Philipp, the Orthodox Metropolitanate, Oleg Yankovskiy.
One can guess that most of the cast comes from a true and solid theatrical background, but their theatrical skills are well put into use in this masterpiece of a movie.The director, Pavel Semyonovich Lungin, is a worthy follower in the enormous footsteps of his legendary predecessor, Sergei Eisentein.
His style and his technique are immaculate and show a sense of artistry uncommon these days.I can only say a loud Bravo, to everyone involved with this movie, since they have given us the ideal ending to "Ivan the Terrible" and in such a way, as not to disrupt the continuity of the trilogy.In the words of Pavel Lungin, it is a warning to the ever changing world we know today, not to relapse into the same mistakes of absolutism of the past, but work toward a more tolerant future.I salute you, Pavel Semyonovich, and hope you will direct some more movies like these..
I know a little bit about Russian history and had even read a biography of Ivan the Terrible years ago.
Eventually I could see that this film covers a very short period in the middle of Ivan's reign, where he contends with his hand-chosen Metropolitan (church leader guy) Philip, a la Henry II-versus-Thomas a Becket.
Ivan wants a rubber stamp for his brutal goings-on, Philip refuses.
I had to go home and look up the deal about Ivan's use of whipped virgins to do his cleaning, for example.There was not as much blood and guts as there could have been.
They're awful.Where this film SHINES and is WELL WORTH your time and money is with the visuals: the setting, the costumes, the cinematography in general.
And though I deplore the use of animal skins as garments, all that fur was just gorgeous.The film's lighting is brilliant.
The further he gets from his cell, the more he looks like a tsar.
They did a great job of recreating the look without having original locations to use.It's got a lot of great "look and feel" details too: poor dental hygiene, smoky interiors, people who look like they bathe twice a year.Very few characters emerge as much more than placeholders, but the actors playing Ivan and Philip are both very good.
We get no real insight into either man, though.So while it's not a great film, those interested in Russian history will enjoy aspects of it.