How Sergei Eisenstein implicitly criticized the Soviet Regime through "Ivan the Terrible" (1944)?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 тра 2020
- An audiovisual essay on Sergei Eisenstein's "Ivan the Terrible" (1944). This audiovisual essay analyzes the filmic forms and structures of Eisenstein's film through the lens of Slavoj Žižek's concept "subversive affirmation".
Based off of my bachelor thesis. For more see www.academia.edu/39657299/Sub....
Music: Aram Khachaturian - "Masquerade: Waltz"
Follow me on my socials:
Instagram: / audiovisual. .
Linkedin: / shant-bay. .
Facebook: / audiovisuale. .
Website: shantbayramian.wixsite.com/th...
----------------------------------------------------------
Shant Bayramian - 2020
* * * FOR STUDY PURPOSES ONLY * * * Fair use is codified at Section 107 of the Copyright Act.
Under the fair use doctrine, it is not an infringement to use the copyrighted works of another in sone circumstances, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, or educational use. - Фільми й анімація
The line of people at the end kind of looks like the sickle in the hammer and sickle, his sleeve hanging sort of looks like the hammer if you pause at the right time. Not sure if that's a huge reach or if it was intentional
bro this review was amazing. I just wish it was longer. One could spend ages talking about this movie.
Great analysis. You should analyze more Russian films.
I would contend that the entire story line of Ivan is projected as a historical parallel with Stalin, Of course, the leaders, it's his story (or history, if you want). He is the center of the story. Affirmation is the whole intent. The boyars are there representing the kulaks. The Oprichniki are there representing the eye of the tsar, the NKVD. The CPSU/Oprichniki stands as the defender of the leader by the common people. Dare I suggest Sergei Kirov as the tsarina's alter-ego? Vladimir and his mother's conspiracy projects Trotsky and his claim to the throne. Indeed, it is ahistorical in regards to the tsarist era and the post-revolutionary period. If there was truly something subversive that Eisenstein wanted to project, I would suggest it was in the third film. Stalin WAS Ivan, and Ivan WAS Stalin. And the two films clearly made that the theme, hence the withholding of Part Two by the CPSU. But Eisenstein pulls few punches in regards to those competing for power, except in regards to the feebleness of Vladimir (which could also be taken as a shot at Trotsky).
dude...
slow down lol, you're speaking like you need to get this video under 8 1/2 minutes. it would be more comprehensible if it was longer since a lot of people including me tend to zone out when people are speaking a trillion words a second.
For nonmaternal english speakers (or wannabe) it's hard to follow.
No
What a shame we cannot watch ivan the third....ezestain was brave
dont speak that fast, have a clearer diction, these are important matters. Otherwise good video
Are you 90?
I think he did fine
Zizek is based
Sergei Eisenstein NEVER criticized Soviet regime because he WAS very important part of this regime. He was as Leni Riefensthal for Lenin.
He was among the first volunteers in Red Army and his devotion to Bolshevik ideology helped him a lot to become the most brilliant propaganda producer in Soviet history.
read up on something called intentional fallacy
The point of the AV essay is not to prove Eisenstein's intentions but it frames it through a specific lens
@@TheAudiovisualEssayist but it's just that a lens, Eisenstein was a marxist-lenninist, he was devoted to the revolution and to the first proletariat state. This movie is in it's deeper meaning fully supportive of that ideology.
@@TheAudiovisualEssayisteisenstein was a fanatic supporter of the ussr.He was a communist and this sad attempt to make him antisoviet is idiotic.Its obvious from the way you talk about about the soviet power, "totalitarian regime" thats not how he viewed stalin nor the ussr in general all of his movies are pro soviet and revolutionary.Ivan the terrible is both a criqute of the old tsarist russian empire(its a movie about its founder you idiot) while at the same time appreciating and accept that the experience of the russian empire has shaped russian culture!Bravo among all of his works where he calls for revolution where he fanatically supports the power of the soviets you took his movie a direct criticism of the old monarchy and appreciation of russian culture to be...an anticommunist "antistalinist" work because YOU(a smartass who quotes the ultimate opportunist zizek) view the soviet union as totalitarian.Eisenstein fought for the revolution was among the first to fight in the red army and supported fanatically the soviet union throught his life.Look how easy it is to be you(a smartass) alexander nevsky(1938) 6 years before this movie.Alexander nevsksy leads the russian people against a much stronger childmurdering german army.Stalin is obviously Nevsky leading the people to victory against the nazis you can see the russian people uniting women and men toghter against the invader and gaining victory with bravery and courage!Simplistic as hell but you know what?Unlike your "analysis" of ivan the terrible my simplistic reading of the movie is probably what nevsky wanted to spread!Nevsky isnt a ruler he has no connection to the tsar ,he is a hero of a medieval republic novgorod!.I dont even know if you will ever read this but you have projected what you wanted the movie to be about on to it which is fine but here you come claiming that these were the views of eisenstein!
The problem with the "intentional fallacy" idea (fron new critiscism) is that elude the importance of the autor (his ideas and his life) in the commentary. I don't think that the first part of Ivan The Terrible is really a critic of stalinism (maybe the second part that have been censored), in the first part the boyars are really depicted as ennemies of Russia and Ivan as the man who unifying the country and give to it his greatness. But in the second part Ivan is shown on a darker side, he is depicted as a crazy old and violent rullers. Sorry for my really unperfect english. @@TheAudiovisualEssayist
mid imo
Never have an opinion again
@@bobsbigboy_ ive come to a new conclusion, the video is giga ASS
what a load of bullishiitee sir. I used to study in university of cine Moscow , where Eizenstein was a professor from 1920 to 1940s . Later the students of Eizenstein were were teachers in my uni. Even i knew a professor with a soothing sounding surname Trankvilitskiy who knew him personally on 1940s he was about 90 on 2006.
Why am i writing this preamble //? Ahh so , for that decade i heard word Eizenshte several thousand times, i heard gossips from his ex and ex-ex peers about him and his life.
What you are saying i only saw in anti communist sources tho it has no basis even it doest make sense , He was an ideological communist , his personal notes , his work is prove of that.
I understand that it might be that western history might deform stories in its ideological favor, When Sergei was working on movie Ivan he submitted the precise scenery , drawings composition, basically everything was known in advance. Politicians could easily cut funds in advance but they didn't.
You was showing scenes from Ivan the terrible 1. Stalin personal gave him a pries for that movie. Only In Ivan the Terible 2 when Ivan was killing his close peps ,movie was silenced.
Idk i dont like when they speak about Eisenstein only from political prespective coz if not him and not his work his theory of motaje, mpvies as we know now perhaps did not exist.
No matter was his political vies lets give his a praise for that theoretical basis of film he left.
Like Mendeleev periodic table was much a basics for modern chemistry
Eisenstein left theory that shaped films.
cheers
Silence
@@bobsbigboy_ man i gave my arguments , and this kind of trolling is disrespectful.
If you disagree or have different information , im open to a polite discussion with you.
Dictators are nothing