Essay Sample on Sergei Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible and Joseph Stalin

Sergei Eisenstein, a pioneer in the theory and practice of montage, passed away in 1948. His last work was a trilogy of Ivan the Terrible’s life. (1) Eisenstein worked on Ivan the Terrible for five years, from January 1941 to February 1946. He was unfortunately only able to complete two-thirds of his projected three-part film. (2) Part I was completed in December 1944, Part II was submitted in February 1946 and was banned in March, and Part III remained incomplete at Eisenstein’s death. However, some screenplay, footage, and notes have survived. (2) Sergei Eisenstein had planned to use Ivan the Terrible’s trilogy as a safe way to raise question about the current Joseph Stalin’s totalitarian regime. But under the strict surveillance and control of Joseph Stalin himself, (3) Eisenstein had to be creative in his critical analysis. In his first film, he used his control of the technical aspects to tell the story of the famous Russian leader Ivan the Terrible and subverbally connect Ivan to Joseph Stalin and by large. Eisenstein then uses the second film to invertedly raise questions on totalitarian regimes. Through a close study of the first film, one can see the hints Eisenstein begins to set up as Ivan the terrible becomes a persona of Stalin. This essay will focus on how Eisenstein connects Ivan the Terrible to Joseph Stalin in the mind of the viewer general using both verbal and visual mediums.

The most obvious technical aspect that connects Ivan and Stalin to the viewer is the usage of language in the introduction monologue of Ivan the Terrible (1945). It begins with the intoduction paragraph of “The Muscovy Prince” who “wielded scattered principles into a mighty state. The commander who enhanced the military glory of Russia in the east and in the west.” (4) This description is vital to set the tone for the audience. This is the beginning of the double narrative, the comparison of Ivan and Stalin through the usage of indirect language. This comparison can be reviled with a close look into the word choice. “The Muscovy Prince,” is aptly named as Russia was referred to Muscovy in the 16th century (and more importantly, throughout the film.), yet later in the passage, there was a deliberate choice to use the words “glory of Russia” and “state that would become unified.” This could be a deliberate attempt by Eisenstein to use a type of double entendre — a figure of speech or a particular way of wording that is devised to have a double meaning (5) — to project both the surface and underlying narrative that begins to form the idea of Ivan and Stalin being connected. 

But if language alone is not enough to present the idea, Eisenstein also uses mise-en-scene – a term used to describe the setting or background of a scene in a play or a film (6) – to present his purpose in even the most minute shot of this film. He makes use of every visual detail, leaving cryptic messages and ideas to suggests a break to remind audiences of their present to situate Ivan’s story to their own current context. There is never a single shot where you question its significance, despite the movies look and tone. Everything is intentional with Eisenstein, who had to be creative with his cinematic method as to evade the censor and the wrath of Joseph Stalin to present the film in a way that would have his audience the hidden story. This is demonstrated the most in the opening of the film with the coronation of Ivan underway. The main characters are presented with Ivan as a projection of Stalin. The boyars are the hereditary class of affluent bourgeois. Vladimir and his mother, Euphrosinia, conspiracy projects Trotsky and his claim to Russia. (7) The scene begins with the ambassadors from Europe and from the territories within Russia voicing their opinion about the upcoming crown Tsar. In this scene, behind the ambassadors is a painting in the background of Lazarus being resurrected by Jesus Christ. This background art is shown throughout shots of the coronation scene in various sizes. Upon further research, Eisenstein usage of the background is seen as an analogy. In the same way that Jesus resurrects Lazarus from the dead primarily due to Lazarus is faith (8) Eisenstein uses this as reference how Ivan (and Stalin), being in Jesus-like positions who will bring the Russian state back to life to from the dead. 

To conclude, This essay focused on the various ways that Eisenstein connects Ivan the Terrible to Joseph Stalin in the viewer’s mind in an attempt to question Joseph Stalin and Totalitarian regimes in general using both verbal and visual mediums.