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]