John Dalmas wrote:

>I would give the nod myself to "Nevsky" because it works much better
>"cinematically" than Part 1 of "Ivan," which on the screen is too static

I agree with you about the "static" quality of Part One in front of Part
Two.  However, except for the Battle on Ice sequence, Nevsky as a movie is
more static and flatter than the complex interweaving of image and sound of
Part One (Ivan's coronation, Ivan's wedding, the marvelous sequence of the
Ivan's illness, Anastasia's funeral and others) as a whole.  From another
perspective, Part One is a sort of technical and conceptual bridge between
the theatrical Nevsky and the overwhelming Boyars Plot in the incursions of
Eisenstein in sound films.

>(Pauline Kael called it "a collection of stills")

Kael recognized her lack of patience for look since another perspective
those movies "as mysterious to the American eye and mind as Kabuki, to
which it is often compared" (search a Microsoft Cinemania for more
details).  But of course, is a valid point of view.

Maybe the soundtrack from two Ivan's is not as memorable than the Nevsky's
cantata, but in the film the sound of Ivan's parts it works with more depth
and complexity.  And the Boyars Plot is a perfect example of this.

A thousand of apologies for my barbarian use of English syntax.

Mauricio Veliz Cartagena
[log in to unmask]