Ivan Groznyy. Skaz vtoroy: Boyarskiy zagovor
Tags: revenge, flashback

Plot synopsis:
The opening scene is in the throne room of the King of Poland, which has a floor resembling a giant chess board. The costumes are rich and ornate, and Polonaises, the music of Poland, play in the background throughout. Prince Andrei Kurbsky (Mikhail Nazvanov), formerly a best friend to Ivan, enters to hand his sword to the King, who receives it, then returns it, symbolizing a new vassal to lord relationship. Some of Kurbsky's formerly Russian lands are thus passed to Polish control. The courtiers in attendance are all smiles and welcoming faces. Many good looking ladies are sizing up Kurbsky. The ladies use their eyes to show interest either in the man or in the words he says.The happy atmosphere is interrupted by a disheveled courier who arrives and breathlessly announces that Ivan has returned to Moscow as Tsar. At this news, the party is over, and all present quickly leave the throne room.Ivan (Nikolai Cherkasov), back in Moscow as Tsar, looks older and more tired, and there is even a glint of madness and fear in his eyes. Stung at having had one boyar, namely Kurbsky, defect and put Russian land in foreign hands, he wants a new system where the land is always part of Russia and the boyars are caretaker managers of their districts with no power to transfer the land to outsiders. Since this increases his power at the expense of the hereditary landowners, the boyars, they unite in opposition to his plans, and he is alone and friendless.When he laments that he has no one to trust, the only he could trust was his wife and companion, now dead, the chief of his landless supporters, Czar's Guard Aleksei Basmanov (Amvrosi Buchma) tells Ivan that he is a true friend who can be trusted. Ivan immediately scolds him, telling him he cannot be a friend, since he is a hired servant.Basmanov and the Oprichniki help Ivan consolidate his power over the boyars with terror, arranging for the elimination of some of them.Needing friendship, and wanting to have somebody around to trust, he brings to court his old friend Kolychev, who has become Philip the monk, and makes him metropolitan bishop of Moscow. Philip is not willing to help Ivan in any way, insisting that the Tsars role must be to guarantee that old traditional ways of doing things will be maintained. Ivan is so sad and obsessed to have company that he even begs Philip on his knees to remain his friend.Philip agrees, but his intent is to try to bend Ivan to the will of the Church, and exacts a promise that he will have the right to intercede for anyone condemned to death. Philip is frustrated by what he sees as Ivan's misuse of power, as he takes his cues from the boyars.Meantime, Ivan has become used to using executions to consolidate his political power, killing not only those who openly defy, plot or disobey, but even people that he guesses might resent one of his upcoming decisions, such as the person Philip replaces in Moscow.Ivan faces down Philip and lets loose his private force, the Oprichniks, on the boyars. Although as Tsar he must keep his word, he circumvents his promise to Philip by executing those condemned so quickly that they are dead before Philip has even the news that might lead to a plea for intercession. In this way he has three boyars executed. About this time his nickname the Terrible begins to be used.As a sort of explanation of Ivan's relentless will to crush the Boyars, we see a flashback to Ivan's childhood. His mother was poisoned by boyars, and her last words to him were "Don't trust the boyars." Although young Ivan (Erik Pyryev) is given to wear the trappings of authority in Muscovy, decisions are made by a couple of old boyars who mock him when he asks questions. A bit later he learns that even very young he can assert his authority if he persists and has the will.The boyars, close to desperation, plead their case to Philip and win him over. He vows to block Ivan's abuse of power. In the cathedral a mystery is in process, the songs and representation telling about the terrible torments of fire that await those who refuse to do the will of God. Philip confronts Ivan, and as the argument heats up, Ivan, angry, proclaims that he will be exactly what the boyars call him, the Terrible, and has Philip seized.Fyodor Basmanov (Mikhail Kuznetsov), the first of the Oprichnina, helps Ivan figure out that the Tsarina was poisoned, and both suspect Ivan's aunt Efrosinia (Serafima Birman) of poisoning the wine cup. Ivan orders Fyodor not to say anything about it until he (Ivan) is certain beyond doubt of her guilt.Led by the Tsar's aunt, Efrosinia, the boyars now decide that their only option is to assassinate Ivan and enthrone her son, Vladimir (Pavel Kadochnikov). The novice Pyotr is selected to wield the knife.Ivan, wanting to ascertain Efrosinia's guilt, invites Vladimir to a banquet with the Oprichnina. Vladimir doesnt want to go, but Efrosinia insists that he go and take Pyotr with him, thinking that a magnificent opportunity for the murder has arisen.Ivan gets Vladimir drunk while the Oprichnina sing and dance around them. Ivan manipulates Vladimir, telling him he is a dear cousin, that its too bad they aren't good friends who tell each other confidences. The drunk Vladimir mentions that his mother wants him to be Tsar, even though he himself doesn't want it. Later he lets on that there is a plot to kill Ivan. With this, Ivan is now absolutely sure that Efrosinia was his wife's poisoner.Fyodor Basmanov notices Pyotr leaving, someone who did not belong in the party, and signals Ivan.Ivan, pretending surprise at Vladimir's revelation, suggests to Vladimir that being Tsar is not so bad. He convinces Vladimir to try being Tsar for a while, and has the Oprichnina bring throne, orb, scepter, crown and royal robes. Vladimir is dressed up as Tsar and they all bow down to "Tsar Vladimir."Then Ivan tells Vladimir to lead them, in full regalia, to the cathedral to pray, as a Tsar should lead. With much hesitation and fear, Vladimir does. In the cathedral, the assassin runs up and stabs the mock Tsar, and is immediately seized by Fyodor and Malyuta.Ivan orders them to release Pyotr, and thanks him for killing the tsar's worst enemy. Efrosinia arrives, jubilant at the apparent death of Ivan, until she sees Ivan alive. Rolling the corpse over, she sees it is her own son, screeches in desperation while holding Vladimir in a pose reminiscent of Michelangelo's Pietá.Ivan sentences her. Then, in a final soliloquy, Ivan proclaims that all his enemies within Moscow are vanquished so he can now concentrate to those outside.

Review: Ivan the Terrible Part II, the culmination of Eisenstein's career, is easily one of the most brilliant films of all time.Nothing - repeat absolutely nothing - in this film is sub-par.
Eisenstein's compositions create painterly tableaux that can be watched endlessly on pause (especially now that Criterion has issued both Ivans on DVD), allowing the audience to take in the full breadth of this man's genius.
Additionally, unlike, for example, Alexander Nevsky or Strike, Ivan the Terrible Part II (and part I) benefits from a smoother pace and better editing, putting Eisenstein's theory of montage to its best use since Potemkin.For me, however, what two key components of this film set it apart from its prequel and Eisenstein's earlier Potemkin and October.Those components, as you can imagine, are its more pronounce political allegory and its color sequence towards the end.Certainly October and Potemkin were highly politicized affairs, both celebrating the Communist victory in Russia.
In Ivan the Terrible Part II (and to a lesser extent Part I), the audience bears witness to a moment of challenge wherein Eisenstein becomes critical of the course his country and its post-Lenin leaders have taken.
As such, Ivan the Terrible becomes one of the bravest moments in film history and, for that alone, should be commended.Brilliant as a political critique, the film also represents a dazzling demonstration of how color could be used in cinema.
It does not have to mimic reality; rather it can be used artistically to enhance the mood and atmosphere of the film.Taken as a whole, the two-part Ivan the Terrible is a masterpiece of Russian Cinema and should be required viewing for anyone with the slightest bit of interest in film.
And if you decide to watch this film, I recommend: take great Criterion DVD box set which contains also first part and "Alexander Nevsky", another Eisenstein's sound masterpiece..
Ivan Grosnyy, Part II is the movie of my life; the Part I is also a very good film.
I suggest to all the people who like this genre of film to see another very good film of Sergey Eisenstein: Alexander Nevsky once again with Nikolai Cherkasov in the main role.
Ivan the Terrible marks the final stages of the cinema's greatest creative genius: SERGI EISENSTEIN.
In the work, Eisenstein has gone eons beyond his earlier methods of film creation and for the first time approaches a true synthesis of dance, music, poetry, painting, photography, architecture, and all other forms of aesthetic communication.The trials and tribulations surrounding the production and distribution of Ivan have become legendary in there own right.
Together with the world renowned composer, master Sergei Prokofiev, and his lifelong cinematographer Eduard Tisse, Eisenstein labored for years researching and planning out every camera angle, lighting scheme, musical note, costume, color palette, gesture, and perspective; until every scene in Ivan becomes an intricate and complex world of its own.
A world where actors twist and bend their forms to the limits of the plastic frame, shadows conceal and light reveals, the musical notes flow with the rhythm and tempo of the visual image and in the famous banquet scene, colors are used by Eisenstein to delve into the psychological states of the character's mind and state of being.
What remains of Ivan the Terrible will live forever as a testament not only to the genius of Sergei Eisenstein but also to his unparalleled contribution to the world culture of the 20th century..
This second part of Eisenstein's history of the reign of "Ivan the Terrible" is an excellent portrayal of the complex machinations between the famous tsar and his determined rivals, the boyars.
The story, the settings, the actors, and the characters surpass even the high standards of Part One. Nikolai Cherkasov is again excellent in his portrayal of Ivan, with even his occasional exaggerations fitting nicely into his memorable characterization of the formidable tsar.
(The English nickname 'terrible' does not really convey the full sense of his actual nickname in Russian.)The early scenes lead up to the lengthy sequence of the banquet and its aftermath, which a masterpiece of psychological drama and effective film-making.
The cat-and-mouse game between Ivan and his enemies is complemented by the color, imagery, and other details, and it all leads up to a climax filled with tension and possibilities.Eisenstein's series on Ivan showcases the great Russian director's distinctive technique, and it is certainly one of the finest of all historically-based movies.
This space can't afford me the kind of gargantuan platform needed to speak on Eisenstein's masterwork (both parts) with the sort of attention to detail and passion that the director brings to the story of the Russian tsar.
Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible films are two hugely underrated masterpieces.
Like the first part of the movie "Boyarsky Zagovor" (Conspiracy of the Boyars)is indeed a film about Stalin (who was a great admirer of Ivan the IV.) and the (seem-to-be)mechanics of power itself.
In 1564, Ivan, The Terrible (Nicolai Cherkasov), is feeling alone: his wife, friend and great companion was poisoned and his best friend, Prince Andreu Kurbsky (Mikhail Nazvanov) has betrayed him and delivered some Russian cities to Poland.
It's great art.Eisenstein can be compared to Michelangelo,no less.Needless to say,you've got to see part one -slightly inferior to this one,but what does it mean,when you' re watching the seventh art at the height of its terrible powers?-.This part focuses on the feud between Ivan and his aunt who tries to replace him by an effeminate imposter of her choice.Prokofiev music gives the feeling of watching an opera,the scenes in the cathedral recreate a mystery as it was in the Middle Ages as faithfully as you can wish.The peak of the movie remains the banquet,shot in color,thanks to spoils of war film.So stunning is Eisenstein's mastery of the picture that you can hardly exactly tell when the color returns to black and white (which for the final becomes a color in itself)Ivan's last soliloquy might seem aggressive and chauvinistic.But you've got to remember that the USSR were at war at the time ."Ivan" is timeless ,a monument that's as awesome today as it was for its -deleted,because of Stalin- 1958 release..
sure, the technical solutions, the genius of Eisenstein, the tension and the use of colors in the last scenes are the pieces defining this film as masterpiece.
After filming part I of "Ivan" in his classical vein, with his mastery of the silent era still finely honed, Eisenstein had a much different vision for Part II.
Shot in the dire depths of World War II, in 1944-45, it is like all Russian films passionately nationalistic, but perhaps it was too Wagnerian for Stalin, who hated it, demanded Eisenstein repudiate it, which not only prevented the master from filming the 3rd part of his trilogy, but destroyed his career and health.For modern audiences, particularly postmodern audiences, the film has the stagy melodramatic acting, pacing and movement of the silent era that videodrones and harrypotters will never appreciate.
Mostly because Eisenstein's now very visible portrayal of Stalin and the history of the Russian leaders ever-present enslavement and despotism over their people.
Such a film.First of all why did it never came out part 3 I mean it could have been the best trilogy ever made.This was made in 1945-46 but banned for 12 years.It was it because Stalin did not like it at all.Because of Ivan´s secret police and maybe because they also show Ivan as a weak person.He has no friends and that he really suffer for.As  historical films I guess they are not better then others but that was not the idea either.
I could never dreamed of that the color sequence would have been as good as this.The whole plot is really superb.You can watch every visual image of this film and just see the art in it.I can´t find nothing that I do not like about these to films,it has a own style.The acting is also powerful and it fit´s in perfectly.Part two has  a very ghost-alike feeling and in the color sequence the red colors is really masterful.This was Eisenstein´s last film he died in 1948 only 50 years old.This two epics is if you are interesting of a film a treasure.They are some of the best films I have seen because I have never seen anything like this.I recommend the criterion collection box set Eisenstein:the sound years, very much.Rating: Ivan the terrible parts 1&2 I rate 5/5.
This has a 16 minute colour sequence near the end plus the last 2 minutes that added a new dimension to the story, and although the spotlighting was a bit ropey it all worked well with the usual fantastic camera angles and ugly brooding people.Ivan vacillates between doing it his way and relying on Mother Church for help.
Intelligent film-making is hardly the phrase to use  a previous post compared Eisenstein correctly to Kurosawa  very different styles but with the same results.Wonderful sequel, much better to be watched on the heels of Part 1.
Both of Eisenstein's Ivan films are extremely impressive, though it is part two that makes them a water-shed moment in film, and to a degree twentieth century, history.Aesthetically, perhaps the most impressive thing about the films is the art direction.
The nightmarishly icon-covered walls of the sets, the gorgeous but sinister props representing stupendous luxury and power, but also id-infused terror, could fill the halls of a major museum and wow in their own right, even if they were not part of a watershed-film.This is the only one of Eisenstein's films, that I know of, to be composed almost entirely of interior scenes.
Eisenstein had surely been prepared to die when Stalin saw the second film.
Eisenstein approached the Ivan the Terrible films from a traditional theatrical angle appropriate to the subject matter.
Eisenstein never really stopped thinking like a director of silents, and although the Ivan films are quite wordy they can be read and understood purely as visuals.The first scene is also the lightest and happiest, which seems unusual  after all it's a scene in which Ivan's best friend is betraying him and going over to join his enemy  but in the context of the whole picture perhaps it's not that strange.
Although Eisenstein has never been among my favorite directors, I must admit his unfinished trilogy about Ivan the terrible proves his great talent, sincerity and bravery as a filmmaker.Part 2 of the trilogy was criticized by Stalin and banned, the production of part 3 was stopped.Stalin,who idealized Ivan 4 as a founder and a leader of a powerful Russian State, suggested(namely, ordered) Eisenstein the biopic about him.
As a whole trilogy must have been represent three stage of Ivan's life: the heroic youth of "Tsar of All Russia', his middle age with the suffering and the beginning of moral decline as a results of never-ending conspiracy, and the beginning of last period of his life with a massacre in Novgorod and battles in Livoian War,where all of his supporters were killed and he was left alone at last.I've recently read the scenario of part 3 and found there both apparent similarities with previous parts and logical development of the plot after the events depicted previously.
As Ivan the Terrible attempts to consolidate his power by establishing a personal army, his political rivals, the Russian boyars, plot to assassinate their Tsar.This film has made it to Roger Ebert's "Great Movies" list, as well as many other lists of movies to see before you die.
And, indeed, it really is an incredible story of Russia, the Tsar, the church and the boyars (the old aristocracy in Russia).But what makes the film most notable is not the film itself (though it is good), but its production history.
After all these years, and Stanislavsky and our own mumbling, subliminal "method" thespians, albeit a few of them too rise above and transcend mere impersonations, Eisenstein's stylized close-up and "painterly" orchestrated set pieces, even his early use of cinema color is true art and not pastiche, elevate and transform the medium of "film." No superficial Barrymore elocutions and stridencies here.
The second, while still very incomplete-looking, is a vast improvement, as eye rolling is minimal, though overacting and long boring scenes are present in this film just like in part 1!
Even without all the truly awful behaviors of Ivan, apparently the supremely evil Stalin STILL didn't like the film and wouldn't allow its release during his lifetime.
Maybe he didn't allow this because he was more worried people would see what a HUGE waste of money and resources the film was instead of seeing Stalin as a crazy guy just like Ivan!
Ivan The Terrible,  Part II,  is one of those movies that you supposedly have to watch to be able to talk about Russian cinema and know what you're talking about.
Eisenstein,  of course,  had by this point rejected the dead-end "montage of attractions",  meaning that this movie,  seemingly in redemption for that idea,  cuts probably not more than once every 10 seconds,  and that the camera hardly ever moves.
I just can't imaging people still liked watching this in 1958, no matter how great and big Eisenstein was, who had died 10 years prior to the release of this movie.It's an interesting watch for those interested in history and for the fans of Eisenstein's work.
The rhythm of the cuts is the overwhelming clock of the experience.Just as Ivan invents the Russian people, so too does Eisenstein invent the notion of dancing rhythm of film and thus a new narrative perspective, unique to film..
The second part is slightly different since it was the time when Ivan the Terrible had to face the plots and conspiracy from the Boyars, the nobles and the top echelon church people and he had to defeat them with wise schemes more than just plain violence.
It is a masterpiece because Eisenstein uses rather simple means to produce an epic film whose every scene is poignant, powerful, impressive, etc.
The hands, the faces, the bodies are among the best actors of the film along with the actors themselves, quite in the line of what Eisenstein was doing in the 20s, but even better because he was able to use their lips in order to make them speak.
In the film Ivan the Terrible Part II, directed by Sergei Eisenstein and M.
By having Cherkasov play Ivan, he is allowing himself to bring a little of Sergei Eisenstein's, whose is the writer, life into the film as well.
This film that was made in 1959, allowed Eisenstein to use Ivan as a way to tell his good and bad that he has experienced while growing up.
Eventually the boyars get through to him, and in a truly magical and glorious kinetic celebration of dance, music and even color (red-tinted apparently 2-strip film from the Germans) Efrosina's and Philip's plots come together in the person of Efrosina's idiot son Vladimir....I won't spoil the ending, and will just finish my remarks by noting that the film also contains flashbacks to the Tsar's childhood, showing the justifications for his paranoia and hatred of the boyars as we see how his parents were both murdered at their behest; the young Ivan in these scenes (Erik Pyryev) is particularly notable; and the musical/dance sequences that occupy the last third of the film allow us to see Eisenstein at his Hollywood-gaudiest, a potential director of Gene Kelly or Fred Astaire, a mounter of neo-Busby Berkley spectaculars.
SPOILERS hereinSecond and last part of Eisenstein's unfinished trilogy about the title character, it's surprisingly very different than any other of his films, including part one: if he was known for film the Russian myths and made them look even greater to the benefit of the communist regime, here the leading character is extremely humanized and it's far away from the noble hero of the previous films: betrayed by their friends, the woman he loved dead, and hated by those around him, Ivan gradually goes insane by the loneliness of the absolute power, and is so sad and obsessed to have company that he even begs on his knees to a corrupt bishop to have his friendship.
In the end, Ivan the Terrible part II remained as one of, if not the best picture of the director, and one of the greatest achievements in the history of cinema; the genius defeated the genocidal..
I had to see if it was indeed the masterpiece it is claimed to be, especially as both parts appeared in the 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die. I'm not sure if the story was picking up where it left off, but basically Tsar Ivan IV (Nikolai Cherkasov) of Russia in the 16th Century, suffered the death of his wife Anastasia from poisoning, and his chief warrior Prince Andrei Kurbsky (Mikhail Nazvanov) defected to the Poles, and he makes a friend with Fyodor Kolychev (Andrei Abrikosov) who becomes Archbishop Philip the monk for Moscow.
All the King's Men. Sergei Eisenstein had planned to make a trilogy about the life of the Russian czar Ivan Groznyy.
Even as a short film, IVAN THE TERRIBLE: PART II is a slow, escalating march towards the uncovering of an assassination plot meant to rid him from the throne in lieu of his cousin Vladimir Staritsky, a thing that his mother Eufrosinia wants with a vengeance, since this would mean power to the boyars.
8/10 The source for some information about the score have been derived from the text 'Stalin the Powerful: Prokofiev, Eisenstein and IVAN THE TERRIBLE' published in Film Score Monthly Online (August 2007) Thank you for reading.
The film was made in 1958, 5 years after Stalin's death (after his death, the horrible crimes that he committed when he was in power were revealed) which is no coincidence.What I don't understand is how Eisenstein chose to have some parts in color and others in black and white for this film.