Much of the cinematic vocabulary which we take for granted was once considered radical and new.  In the early days of movie making, directors like DW Griffith and Sergei Eisenstein put a great deal of thought and effort into using cinema in ways no other art form could be used.  Eisenstein, as one of the central architects of the theory of montage, or editing for dramatic effect and expanded meaning, made some crucial contributions in films like Battleship Potempkin, October, and Strike.  Consider a simple montage: a shot of  an expressionless man, followed by a shot of a bowl of soup.  The meaning we gather is that the man is hungry: a meaning that is only derived from the shot sequence.  It may be filmmaking 101, but someone had to create it, and we owe a lot of it to Eisenstein.

exultation of Communism and call to arms against the Germans.  Made in 1938, when Hitler was threatening his neighbors and war was immanent, it was quite transparent in its anti-German and anti-Catholic sentiments.  But the film is so finely crafted that it can be subjected to a number of interpretations.  It can easily be seen as a standard, Hollywood-style heroic war movie, complete with love story, or even as a Christian allegory.  (When we first see Alexander, he is bearded and dressed in a plain white tunic while he and his people fish).  Religious symbolism abounds, from the corrupt priests of the Teutonic Knights to the quasi-religious chants of the people to the Inquisition-like massacre of Pskov.

following his non-agression pact with Germany.  War hero Alexander (mesmerizingly played by Russia’s finest actor, Nikolai Cherkassov) is asked by the people to lead them against the invaders, and in one of the most famous and influential battle scenes ever committed to film, he does just that.

Alexander Nevsky is a treasure trove of striking elements.  The score is considered by many film music buffs to be one of the greatest ever composed for a movie.  Written in close collaboration with Eisenstein by Sergei Prokofiev, one of the 20^th century’s most important composers, the music is so intimately entangled with the film that it is

Nevsky is a cinematic masterpiece that dates much better than expected.  From the individual shots and stunning music, to the commanding performance of Cherkassov, it ranks as one of the great war movies of all time.  Ivan the Terrible, on the other hand, is a very different movie. Both Ivan I & II were shot back to back following Nevsky, and were to be a trilogy before Eisenstein’s untimely death.  Rather than being a war movie on a grand scale, it is a highly stylized personal look at one of Russia’s great leaders.  The role of the 16^th Tsar who united Russia is played in both films by Alexander Nevsky’s Nikolai Cherkassov, who gives a finely textured and commanding performance. 

The majority of shots are meticulously composed like a paintings from one of the old masters.  They are full of elaborate costumes and baroque sets highlighted by dramatic low-angle lighting.  The cutting is most scenes is very static, but the detailed composition of each shot keeps things from every actually feeling static, since the eye is constantly searching the scene for new details.  This style persists throughout both films, with dramatic gestures and intricate blocking replacing montage, adding to the melodrama and tension of the narrative.  Prokofiev once again scores, and his music also helps provide the static shots with a feeling of drama and movement.

The narrative of Part I deals with Ivan’s life: his coronation, marriage, battles, illness, and the beginning of his fight against the Boyars.  Ivan is always active and larger than life, yet there are still intimate moments that give him dimension, such as his scenes with his wife.  He takes charge and leads his nation as a powerful and dominant force for history.  Part II, however, has a much different pace and tone, with Alexander reacting more than acting.  Upon his return to Moscow from Alexandrov, Ivan is still a powerful force, but instead of expanding his power, he is defending it.  The portrayed of Ivan is always expansive, yet still surprisingly human.  He comes across as heroic yet multidimensional, moreso in the second film than the first, where he is often introspective and troubled.  It was the perceived

restoration, but the millions this would cost would never be covered by the limited public interest in them.  We can only be glad that any print is available, and thank Image for taking a chance making three non-commercial titles easily available.  The transfers are crisp and clean, with the black and white as natural as possible considering the source material.  There is no pixelation or noise, and the only limitations of these disks are the limits of the source material.  When I was studying these movies in film school, they were often hard to find.  Having them with on a durable medium and with such good packaging is a boon for anyone seriously interested in good movies from off the beaten track.