Eisenstein DVD's

Daniel J.S. · 05-08-2003, 08:35 PM

Who here has the "Eisenstein: The Sound Years" set? I got this recently and I was extremely pleased with it. David Bordwell's commentary Alexander Nevsky is one of the best I've heard in a while and Ivan the Terrible is a masterpiece pure and simple. I'm finally understanding how effective montage editing can be and I wonder why it isn't used as often today. I e-mailed Criterion to ask if there was any progress on putting the silents on DVD. They said that they weren't on schedule for 2003, but hopefully 2004. Given how tight-lipped Criterion is about their projects, is this is a good sign that they're working on these films?

Dmitry · 05-09-2003, 02:08 AM

If Criterion were to release Battleship Potemkin I'd grab that in a flash. Ivan the Terrible was a great improvement over Image release IMHO.

Ben Motley · 05-09-2003, 03:22 AM

I didn't like Alexander Nevsky too much. The whole film seemed mis framed, as he mostly filmed all of the action at eye level on a flat plane, above the ground (cutting off characters feet, very bad composition, allowing objects to run out of the frame) and filming lots of clear sky. There is so much unused space in Nevsky, and so little use of angles whatsoever, I was visually bored sensless. In addition to that, I found the story and pace extremely dry as well.

Then it was time to check out Ivan. Holy canolli! What a difference! Some of the scenes are still a bit cramped, but they work because there is definitely much more attention given to composition in these scenes. The action and acting is much more intersting. It is overdone, but that's by design, and it works. Ivan is a freaking nut! And it's a joy and thrill to witness him go from idealistic visionary to paranoid megalomaniac. There is so much more depth to this film than Nevsky, and I'm glad I got the set.

I highly recommend both movies in fact, to see the progression of a filmmaker. The contrast of the two films is fascinating, and the commentaries are extremely informative. A very interesting, engaging set. Thanks and kudos to Criterion on this one.

Jon Robertson · 05-09-2003, 04:36 AM

If you'll forgive me, that's an incredibly bold statement to make about one of the greatest action scenes ever filmed. If you haven't already, please listen to the commentary, which should clear up a few of your qualms with the film's (staggeringly brilliant) photography. You'll be accusing Dreyer of bad framing and failing to use establishing shots in The Passion of Joan of Arc next...

But, in any case, these are truly great films and the Criterion set is worth getting any way you can. Don't expect perfect quality, because the original elements are in atrocious condition, and Criterion will only clean them up to the extent of not altering the actual look of the image. But essential nonetheless.

Lew Crippen · 05-09-2003, 09:54 AM

Quote:

I didn't like Alexander Nevsky too much. The whole film seemed mis framed, as he mostly filmed all of the action at eye level on a flat plane, above the ground (cutting off characters feet, very bad composition, allowing objects to run out of the frame) and filming lots of clear sky.

Watch Oliver’s Henry V and perhaps you might have a different view of the battle on the ice. (I think that the influence may be mentioned somewhere in the ‘Nevesky’ commentary).

The score for ‘Nevesky’ is generally thought to be one of the great scores in cinema history. It is too bad that the sound quality is so poor, but Criterion had a poor source to begin with.

A restored ‘Potemkin’ was making the rounds a couple of years ago. Perhaps a better DVD is on the offing.

**HTF Ads**

Ben Motley · 05-09-2003, 12:32 PM

Hey now!

I never made any bold statement about one of the greatest action scenes ever filmed. I wasn't talking about any one scene, but the whole film overall. I do remember being impressed by the frozen lake battle, but I just didn't think the film as a whole was a visual, compositional triumph. I'll give it another go at some point, and maybe I'll change my tune then - but come on, you've got to at least admit that Ivan is more visually interesting than Nevsky, no? I think it's night and day, with Eisenstein much more mature, expressive, and just plain more involved behind the camera.

As for Passion of Joan of Arc, I found that very interesting visually. Sure, there are many closeups that place the characters, especially Joan, in unconventional framing, but it works for me - kind of like Sergio Leone (I know I'm gonna get it now, comparing Passion to Fistful of Dollars

). And the rest of the filming is interesting too, with obvious attention given to lighting, indoor set and outdoors framing, with much attention given to placement of the various players and inanimate objects as well.

And that was more my beef with Nevsky; not the closeups so much, or the ability to pull off the action scenes, but rather composition of the outdoor scenes and set shots. I think Passion absolutely blows Nevsky away in that department.

I did listen to the commentary on Nevsky, but I didn't take notes, and it's been a while since I listened to it, so it's not fresh in my memory - but as I've already said, I do remember being impressed with the commentary, as it was very informative. It was even more interesting to listen to since it went into the propaganda elements of the film, and I had just recently also watched Triumph of the Will and listened to the commentary on that. Talk about illuminating - compare the themes of propaganda and nationalism between the two films and it gets deep, especially when you consider the dates of both productions (Triumph, '34, Nevsky, '38). Of course, by design Triumph is much more blatant about nationalism, but still, it's downright creepy watching Nevsky in the context of realizing what was going on globally at that time, and knowing what was just around the corner. Of course, I didn't even give this a thought when I watched it on the first run, but when they mentioned it in the commentary, it was like a light bulb came on up there.

Brook K · 05-09-2003, 12:48 PM

I believe (and hope) the Eisenstein: The Silent Years box set is to consist of - Strike! (my favorite), Battleship Potemkin, and October.

IIRC, Nevsky's ice battle is mentioned on the commentary to Henry V as being an influence.

Arise ye Russian hordes....

Rich Malloy · 05-09-2003, 01:10 PM

I'm with ya, Ben!

I think "Nevsky" is a flat-out terrible film, rank propaganda and juvenile romanticism, and not much different from a focus-grouped, mainstreamed (but oh-so-technically-proficient) wad of crapola from modern Hollywood (say, "Pearl Harbor" or "Windtalkers"). The best thing about it in my mind isn't the battle on the ice, but rather Prokofiev's score (too bad it sounds like it was recorded inside a cardboard box!).

And though "Ivan the Terrible" has been the object of ridicule and derision over the decades in many quarters (populist "Movie Turkey" books, as well as the critical establishment), it's in my view a far superior film (or films). Though highly stylized and nearly overwrought in its imagery, it's also extremely nuanced. And the dangerous game of analogy that Eisenstein was playing vis Stalin is thrilling to watch.

Lew Crippen · 05-09-2003, 01:10 PM

Quote:

, but still, it's downright creepy watching Nevsky in the context of realizing what was going on globally at that time, and knowing what was just around the corner.

Here too a similarity with Henry V exists, as here too is a highly nationalistic film—with of course the French as the bad guys.

Ben Motley · 05-09-2003, 01:26 PM

You know Lew, Henry V has just been one of those elusive Critters for me. There are so many Criterions that I want, it's unreal. Add to that the steady release of other dvds as well, and, well, I don't know when I'll be able to finagle it.

Being that I've got on this WWII propaganda flick kick lately, I may have to put that back to the front (gotta get Eye of Vichy too). But then, I still don't have The Seventh Seal, Andre Rublev, The Third Man, The Dreyer set, My Man Godfrey, Spellbound... ugh, I'm makin' myself sick here - so many Critters, and so little moolah. Thanks for the recommendation though Lew! :up:

Rich, it's good to know I'm not alone, haha. I do believe you have a slightly stronger disdain for the film than I do... also, I liked Windtalkers.

I know - everybody point and laugh at the guy who is waxing philosophic over Dreyer and Eisenstein, and yet likes Windtalkers. I can take it.

Jon Robertson · 05-09-2003, 02:24 PM

Some of the politics and propaganda in Alexander Nevsky are a little crude to be sure (blame Stalin for that one), but to call it out a "flat-out terrible film" is some way short of the mark.

However, Ivan The Terrible is unquestionably the finer film, and a bona-fide masterpiece in my book.