Henry V (1944)

Henry V (1944)

Comments 1 comment

“No king of England if not king of France!”

Synopsis:
In early 15th century England, King Henry V (Laurence Olivier) rallies his men to fight and claim the French throne, which he believes should rightfully be his.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Historical Drama
  • Laurence Olivier Films
  • Leo Genn Films
  • Niall MacGinnis Films
  • Play Adaptations
  • Robert Newton Films
  • Royalty and Nobility
  • Shakespeare

Review:
Laurence Olivier’s cinematic debut as a director was this enormously successful adaptation of Shakespeare’s Henry V, made during the height of Britain’s involvement in World War II. Olivier chose to creatively present the play in a hybrid fashion, beginning with panning over the historic Globe Theatre in Stratford-on-Avon:

… and then showing us the play opening up with audiences clearly present:

A Chorus figure (Leslie Banks) talks us through what we’re seeing:

… but it takes a while to understand what’s going on narrative-wise, given the play is presented in authentic Shakespearean English (not easily comprehensible to modern audiences). Instead, we focus on the colorful costumes and attempts at crowd-pleasing humor, as when the Archbishop of Canterbury (Felix Aylmer) keeps dropping the papers he’s reading while sharing news with King Henry about the state of France.

Henry proclaims his intention to go to war against France — but meanwhile, we’re introduced to peripheral comedic characters whose presence doesn’t make much sense (though at least Robert Newton is recognizable in one role):

Eventually the setting of the play broadens beyond the Globe, showing us Henry’s troops in France, preparing for battle. An extended sequence follows Henry walking incognito through the night to listen to his men:

The Battle of Agincourt comes next and is impressively filmed, reminding me instantly of the lengthy combat sequence in Eisenstein’s Alexendar Nevsky:

We also meet beautiful Princess Katherine (Renee Asherson), who converses with King Henry in a combination of French and English:

Overall, we get the gist of the storyline — though it surely will feel much less relevant to modern viewers than either Britons of Shakespeare’s time and/or viewers of the mid-1940s, who may have been more familiar with Shakespearean works. These days, it remains worth a look primarily for its innovation as a beautifully stylized presentation of a classic play — one which helped to rally British morale during some of its darkest years at war, as indicated in these quotes by King Henry:

“Once more unto the breach! Dear friends, once more; or close the wall up with our English dead!”

“On, on, you noblest English… Dishonor not your mothers!”

“The game’s afoot: Follow your spirit and upon this charge cry, ‘God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'”

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Laurence Olivier as Henry V (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actors of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  • Beautiful cinematography and sets

Must See?
Yes, once, for its historical relevance.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Torment (1944)

Torment (1944)

Comments 1 comment

“A man of your learning shouldn’t care so much for respect bred from fear.”

Synopsis:
A teenage student (Alf Kjellin) suffering under cruel treatment at the hands of his Latin teacher (Stig Järrel) falls for a young tobacconist shop clerk (Mai Zetterling) who lives in constant fear of Järrel’s sadistic visits to her.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Ingmar Bergman Films
  • Love Triangle
  • Scandinavian Films
  • Teachers

Review:
Ingmar Bergman’s screenwriting debut (after joining the Svensk Filmindustri on a one-year contract) was this film directed by his mentor, Alf Sjöberg, and loosely based on his own troubled experiences as a non-confirmist student. Unsurprisingly for a Bergman film, it’s both highly atmospheric and extremely dark, depicting the hell experienced by vulnerable students under cruel tutelage:

… as well as a lack of support or understanding at home (specifically in the form of a strict, uncompassionate father):

… and troubled individuals who reach out to one other physically for comfort and love.

These are all themes that would continue to play out in Bergman’s later work, and it’s interesting (if not entirely satisfying) to see them here in a rather nascent and simplistic form. Thankfully, there are compassionate individuals on the sidelines of the bleak narrative, including the school’s headmaster (Olof Winnerstrand), shown here listening to another bullied student (Jan Molander) who has come to him for assistance:

… and Kjellin’s understanding mother (Märta Arbin):

Bergman was apparently asked to write a more optimistic ending for his film, and was allowed to take over directorial duties for this scene, which in his own words made him “more excited that I can describe.” Clearly he had found his calling!

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Martin Bodin’s atmospheric cinematography

Must See?
No; this one is only must-see for those interested in Bergman’s beginnings. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

For Whom the Bell Tolls (1943)

For Whom the Bell Tolls (1943)

Comments 2 comments

“A man fights for what he believes in.”

Synopsis:
An American (Gary Cooper) fighting in Spain on behalf of the Republicans falls in love with a beautiful refugee (Ingrid Bergman) living with a group of gypsy fighters in the mountains — including violent Pablo (Akim Tamiroff), his “woman” Pilar (Katina Paxinou), and an aging guide (Vladimir Sokoloff).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Akim Tamiroff Films
  • Gary Cooper Films
  • Ingrid Bergman Films
  • Sam Wood Films
  • Spanish Civil War

Review:
This big-budget, nearly three-hour Technicolor adaptation of Ernest Hemingway’s bestselling novel about the Spanish Civil War was highly regarded by both audiences (who made it the second highest grossing film of the year) and critics (it received nine Academy Award nominations, winning one for Paxinou as Best Supporting Actress). Unfortunately, it hasn’t dated well at all, and comes across today as a beautifully filmed but overlong, drawn-out melodrama with far too much pancake makeup used.

The screenplay is apparently quite faithful to Hemingway’s novel, which audiences of the day were much more familiar with than viewers now would be; to that end, in his mostly rave review, Bosley Crowther of the New York Times noted:

“As often is the case with pictures which are based upon popular works, a thorough comprehension of this one may depend on whether one has read the book… The cosmic symbolism of [the leads’] regenerative love, set against a background of violence and the impending prospect of death, will barely be comprehensible only to those who have read the book.”

Exactly. Watching Cooper and Bergman fall instantly in love with one another here feels simply like inevitable Hollywood fare, given we don’t have much (if any) background understanding of their characters:

Anyone hoping to actually learn about the Spanish Civil War will be sorely disappointed, as it’s not even mentioned as such. We know there are Rebels (who must be good, given the famous actors playing them) fighting against Bad Guys, but that’s the extent of the nuance — other than a throughline focusing on the nefarious tactics of Tamiroff’s Pablo, who is shown in flashback overseeing brutal acts of violence:

… and whose loyalties we’re constantly made to question. Meanwhile, the Hemingway-ian dialogue in Dudley Nichols’ screenplay is often either laughable and/or offensive — as when the much-darker-skinned Paxinou rambles the following to Bergman:

Paxinou: Life is very curious. I would have made a good man. But, I’m all woman – and all ugly… Yet one can have a feeling *here* that blinds a man while he loves you. He thinks you are beautiful. And one day for no reason at all he sees you ugly, as you really are. And he is not blind anymore. Then you see yourself as ugly as he sees you – and you lose your man and your feeling. Then one day the feeling, that idiotic feeling that you are beautiful, grows inside you again, and another man sees you and thinks you are beautiful, and it’s all to do over again.

Poor Bergman herself, however, is given some of the worst clunkers:

“I do not know how to kiss or I would kiss you. Where do the noses go? Always I wonder where the noses will go.”

“I love you, Roberto. Always remember: I love you as I loved my father and mother, as I love our unborn children, as I love what I love most in the world, and I love you more. Always remember.”

“I’ll never go away from you. I loved you when I first saw you. I’ve always loved you, but I never saw you before.”

… at least until the final sequence between Bergman and Cooper, when Cooper takes back the prize — but I won’t spoil anything.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Ray Rennahan’s atmospheric cinematography

Must See?
Nope; you can skip this one unless you happen to be a diehard fan of Hemingway, Bergman, or Cooper.

Links:

Day of Wrath / Vredens Dag (1943)

Day of Wrath / Vredens Dag (1943)

Comments 1 comment

“All things are revealed in God’s good time.”

Synopsis:
In 17th century Denmark, shortly after an elderly woman (Anna Svierkier) is sentenced to death for being a witch, a young woman (Lisbeth Molvin) married to a widowed minister (Thorkild Roose) — and bullied by Roose’s disapproving mother (Sigrit Neiiendam) — falls in love with Roose’s son (Preben Lerdorff) from a previous marriage.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Carl Theodore Dreyer Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Infidelity
  • Priests and Ministers
  • Scandinavian Films
  • Witches and Wizards

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Carl Dreyer’s austere tale of witchcraft set in a small Danish village in 1623” — “based on Norwegian Wiers Jenson’s play Anne Pedersdotter” — is “quite haunting, like a slow Kafkaesque nightmare,” which perhaps reflects the fact that it “was made during Germany’s occupation of Denmark.” He points out that “it’s creepy watching all these brooding characters in black moving through the frame as if they were between funerals,” and notes that “many shots will stay with you.”

He asserts that the film brings up mixed feelings for us as viewers, given how Movin’s character shifts over the course of the screenplay. While at first “she was solemn and passive”:

… after having an affair with Lerdoff “she becomes a changed woman”: “she laughs, sings, and is an aggressive, sexual temptress.”

Meanwhile, although we are “troubled by the incestuous affair of Movin and Lerdoff” given that “Roose seems like a nice man who is loving to his wife,” we also recognize “he’s the same man who burns people for being witches.”

It’s ambiguous whether Movin (and Svierkier) are being presented as actual witches, but Peary argues (and I agree) “it’s likeliest that Dreyer is stating that within an oppressive religious environment in which most everything is regarded as a sin, a paranoid, persecuted person will regard almost all his or her natural feelings (from joy to lust) as being devil-inspired.”

One of Dreyer’s most ambitious and successful decisions with this movie is to spend significant time showing the ongoing persecution of elderly Svierkier; the horrors she endures aren’t dressed down in any way, and (shockingly) we see her nearly-naked body being tortured:

… before she’s burned alive while a choir of children sing “Dies Irae”. Indeed, we see the true dangers of expressing any individuality or joy in this deeply repressive and biblically austere culture, as embodied by Roose’s coldly condemning mother (Neiiendam):

Carefree scenes of characters escaping into nature for awhile offer temporary reprieve from the oppression:

… but it’s always short-lived. Check out TCM’s article for more details on the film’s production and Dreyer’s vision.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Lisbeth Movin as Marthe
  • Anna Svierkier as Marte Herlof
  • Highly atmospheric cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as a fine and provocative film by Dreyer.

Categories

  • Foreign Gem

Links:

One of Our Aircraft is Missing (1942)

One of Our Aircraft is Missing (1942)

Comments 1 comment

“Stand by to abandon aircraft!”

Synopsis:
When their bomber plane crash-lands in German-occupied Holland, six RAF crewmen (Godfrey Tearle, Eric Portman, Hugh Williams, Bernard Miles, Hugh Burden, and Emrys Jones) receive assistance from Dutch resistance fighters — including an English-speaking schoolteacher (Pamela Brown) and a woman (Googie Withers) pretending to be pro-German.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Airplanes and Pilots
  • Michael Powell Films
  • Peter Ustinov Films
  • Resistance Fighters
  • World War II

Review:
Made the year after 49th Parallel (1941), this joint effort by Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger was the first title released under their new production company (The Archers), and showed audiences the “opposite side” of their previous wartime story (as implied in the top line of the poster; see above). The screenplay opens with an extremely compelling flight sequence which grounds us in the specifics of how pilots fighting for their lives might banter nervously while staying laser-focused (can you recognize Bernard Miles under all that equipment?):

Once the crew have parachuted safely to the ground (minus one, who is later found), we see the men’s adventures across the Netherlands — beginning with encountering kids playing in the countryside, who they must convince of their innocence (thankfully, Burden speaks a bit of survival Dutch):

Because this is a propaganda film, we sense that things will work out for our hardy protagonists — especially given how careful schoolteacher Brown is to ensure they really are who they say they are:

… and thus we can simply enjoy their clever tactics against suspicious Germans, which involve dressing up as Dutch:

… and hiding parachutes under the pews at a church where secret signals are sent by the organist:


Next we see a different brand of heroism, with Withers playing a double-life as a Nazi sympathizer while hiding a radio and helping the Resistance:

The entire film is beautifully shot by DP Ronald Neame, making it a pleasurable viewing experience. While this one is not must-see, it’s well worth a one-time look.

Note: Watch for young (slim) Peter Ustinov in a bit role (his feature-length debut) as a Catholic priest.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • The exciting opening flight sequence
  • Ronald Neame’s cinematography

Must See?
No, though it’s recommended.

Links:

Ossessione (1943)

Ossessione (1943)

Comments 2 comments

“Living with him is impossible. He’s so filthy! So false!”

Synopsis:
When an unemployed vagrant (Massimo Girotti) arrives at a cafe owned by a middle-aged man (Juan de Landa), he has an affair with the man’s unhappy younger wife (Clara Calamai), and the pair soon find themselves plotting to be on their own.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Infidelity
  • Italian Films
  • Luchino Visconti Films
  • Star-Crossed Lovers

Review:
Luchino Visconti’s debut feature (generally cited as the first neo-realist Italian film) was this loose adaptation of James M. Cain’s 1934 novel The Postman Always Rings Twice. Viewers familiar with Hollywood’s two versions of Cain’s novel — Tay Garnett’s 1946 MGM classic and Bob Rafelson’s 1981 remake — will instantly recognize tensions in the opening scenes, as the bored, sexually unfufilled young wife of an older, overweight man is instantly attracted to a hunky stranger arriving at their place of business:

From there, however, the narrative takes slightly different turns than the more “faithful” Hollywood versions. A significant early subplot has Gino leaving to continue his itinerant lifestyle, meeting a young man (Elio Marcuzzo) on a train who offers to pay for his ticket, and who is clearly (though it’s not explicitly stated) attracted to Girotti:

A subsequent sequence with the pair in a one-bed hotel room once again indicates Marcuzzo’s unstated interest:

… but Girotti is exclusively obsessed with Calamai, and can’t stop talking or thinking about her. Sure enough, once they meet again at a carnival, where Girotti is carrying around a sign for Marcuzzo’s act:

… and de Landa is about to participate in an amateur singing contest:

… the wheels of fate are set in motion once again:

SPOILERS

… and we know de Landa is not long for this world. The murder itself takes place off camera — and other than Girotti being initially interrogated by police at the scene of the car crash:

… not too much more is made of the crime other than investigators continuing to pursue leads (i.e., there is no big court case, as in Cain’s novel and both Hollywood versions). Instead, we see Girotti and Calamai’s fraught love affair gradually falling apart, especially once Girotti learns about Calamai cashing in de Landa’s life insurance policy, and begins to suspect he’s been used. When Girotti falls for a flirtatious young ballerina (Dhia Cristiani) he meets at the park:

… tensions between the murderous couple (Girotti and Calamai) naturally rise even higher, eventually leading to the film’s tragic denouement. The entire story is atmospherically filmed, with good use of natural locales and extras, thus leading to its designation by many (though this is contested) as a prototype of Italian neo-realism. Be sure to check out TCM’s article for more information on the film’s production history and challenging release.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Massimo Girotti as Gino
  • Clara Calamai as Giovanna
  • Juan de Landa as Giuseppe
  • Atmospheric cinematography
  • Fine neo-realist location shooting in the Po Delta

Must See?
Yes, for its historical significance in Italian cinema, and as a powerful noir film. Listed as a film with Historical Importance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant
  • Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Jour Se Leve, Le (1939)

Jour Se Leve, Le (1939)

Comments 1 comment

“People in love are said to be more alive than others.”

Synopsis:
A man (Jean Gabin) who has just murdered a cruel dog trainer (Jules Berry) remains barricaded in his apartment, reflecting back on what led him to this act — beginning with meeting a sweet orphan (Jacqueline Laurent) and then connecting with Berry’s world-weary stage assistant (Arletty).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Flashback Films
  • French Films
  • Jealousy
  • Jean Gabin Films
  • Love Triangle

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “classic fatalistic melodrama, masterly directed by Marcel Carné [and] with dialogue by Jacques Prevert” shows us — like “many American directors of forties noir films would do” — “how a decent, average guy can become a murderer under the right set of circumstances.”

He notes that this picture — which “would have been ideal for Fritz Lang” — is a “landmark of French ‘poetic’ realism” given that it’s “extremely intense, sensual…, and atmospheric (the sets are not just part of the background but create the mood.”

He also adds (though this is hard to believe) that he “can think of no other film in which so much import is given to costumes and props, including the gun, Gabin’s dangling cigarette, Laurent’s teddy bear, Gabin’s alarm clock, photos, postcards, hats, brooches, beds, mirrors, flowers, dresses, [and] sweaters”:

… and he points out that “characters almost always are drinking, smoking, or holding something.”

However, “most interesting” to Peary and many other critics is “the structure,” with “this four-character piece… broken down into several intimate two-character scenes”:



Significantly, however, “we never go behind closed doors to see what transpired between the most important combination [of characters], Berry and Laurent” — that is, the “relationship that drove Gabin to his destruction.” Indeed, the primary problem I have with the storyline is that Laurent’s character is somewhat of a boring cipher; we don’t understand why she turns down Gabin’s reasonable early offer of marriage (given that she seems to be in love with him), or her fascination with creepy Berry — unless we’re meant to believe that her status as an orphan has scarred her development.

This film is perhaps best known for kicking off more regular cinematic use of flashbacks. To that end, since we know about the murder from the start, our interest revolves around learning how Gabin got into (and will ultimately emerge from) his increasingly tense situation — which involves being shot at repeatedly inside his apartment (real guns and bullets were used), barricading himself using a large armoire, and shouting down at hordes of spectators who have come to watch the stand-off (and, for what it’s worth, profess to be on his side):

We do know that Gabin’s ending will be dark; at least we are prepared for that.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Jean Gabin as Francois
  • Jules Berry as Valentin
  • Arletty as Clara
  • Atmospheric cinematography and production design

Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance as a pioneering French noir.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Historically Relevant
  • Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

J’Accuse (1938)

J’Accuse (1938)

Comments 0 Comment

“I accuse yesterday’s war of creating today’s Europe. And I accuse tomorrow’s war of preparing its destruction.”

Synopsis:
A traumatized World War I veteran (Victor Francen) watches over the widow (Line Noro) and daughter (Renee Devillers) of his lost compatriot (Marcel Delaitre), vowing to create a machine that will prevent all future wars — but when his plans are foiled, he takes even more extreme measures to remind the world about the horrors of fighting.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Fantasy
  • French Films
  • Veterans
  • World War I

Review:
Abel Gance remade and expanded upon his 1919 silent film of the same name, this time spending much less time on the initial love triangle linking Francen’s character to cuckolded Delaitre (whose wife he had an affair with years earlier), though we do still see a powerful image of the two men (now friends; Delaitre has forgiven Francen) holding hands in solidarity while lying in recovery:

The primary focus of the first half-hour of the film is on how war is so horrible it can’t possibly happen again — right? (“There will never be another war, I’m telling you.”)

Because Delaitre is unable to keep his promise, he descends even further into his PTSD-induced madness, leading to the film’s evocative final act, when once again — as at the end of the 1919 version — the dead are risen from their graves.

It’s a powerful finale (“Immediate disarmament has been unanimously declared!”), and one only wishes it approximated the truth.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Victor Francen as Jean Diaz
  • Highly atmospheric cinematography
  • Powerful imagery and special effects in the final sequences

Must See?
No, but it’s certainly worth a look. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Baker’s Wife, The (1938)

Baker’s Wife, The (1938)

Comments 2 comments

“How could I suspect something I can’t believe even now?”

Synopsis:
When the beautiful young wife (Ginette Leclerc) of a town’s new baker (Raimu) runs away with a handsome shepherd (Charles Moulin), Raimu is too depressed to bake bread. In response, a local marquis (Fernand Charpin) works together with a priest (Robert Vattier) and a schoolteacher (Robert Bassac) to plot to find Leclerc and bring her back, thus restoring Raimu’s will to bake.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cuckolds
  • French Films
  • Infidelity
  • Village Life

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes in his short review, “Marcel Pagnol directed and wrote this wonderful adaptation of an episode of Jean Giono’s novel Jean le Blue,” resulting in a film that “has humor, warmth, sentimentality, provincial flavor, and the special lovable characters one expects from Pagnol.”

He notes that “the great Raimu” — star of his earlier trilogy Marius (1931), Fanny (1932), and Cesar (1936) — “creates such a kind, moral, understanding character”:

… that the ending (“one of the many splendid moments”) rings true, and he asserts that “you’ll believe all these characters truly live in this town.” Indeed, the screenplay is consistently delightful, beginning with a series of interactions that show us how divided the townsfolk have become over petty arguments (such as trees needing trimming):

Meanwhile, they all desperately crave decent bread after months without any; and when they finally receive Raimu’s first loaves, we know a crucial element of life — bread itself — has been restored to their village:

However, this triumph is instantly threatened by another essential life source: love (or at least amorous desire).

Raimu is such a likable cuckold that it’s impossible not to feel for him as he makes up one excuse after another for why his wife may be gone — and even once he’s finally accepted the truth of her infidelity, he is depressed and melancholic rather than angry. How their situation finally becomes resolved — with other villagers’ relationships conveniently mended along the way — is the bulk of the storyline. This comedic tale, while slightly overlong at 2 hours and 13 minutes, remains a fine introduction to Pagnol’s work.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Raimu as the Baker
  • Fine performances by the supporting cast
  • Excellent use of location shooting near Marseilles
  • Pagnol’s humorous script

Must See?
Yes, as a foreign classic.

Categories

  • Foreign Gem

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Alexander Nevsky (1938)

Alexander Nevsky (1938)

Comments 1 comment

“Russia won’t bow to the Germans. We have beaten you in the past and we shall beat you yet again!”

Synopsis:
In 13th century Russia, Prince Alexander Nevsky (Nikolai Cherkasov) leads his ragtag army of fighters in an epic battle against the invading Germans.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Historical Drama
  • Military
  • Russian Films
  • Sergei Eisenstein Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “monumental achievement by Sergei Eisenstein” is “his greatest film” — a “visual tour-de-force about Russia’s heroic 13th-century prince [who] forms a great army to wage war against the seemingly invincible Germans who have invaded the country.” He refers to it as “a peerless propaganda piece that extols Russian nationalism, displays the courage of the common Russian in battle, and viciously attacks Germany, Russian’s historical enemy, which in the 1930s was again on an imperialist march in which impersonal medieval-like soldiers committed atrocities in the name of Christianity.”

He adds that just “in the same way that Triumph of the Will is fascinating when Hitler mingles with his adoring subjects,” it’s fascinating “how Eisenstein humanizes his hero… to show he is not superior to the Russian soldier or peasant, just a better leader.”

For example, “he never talks down to his men; he lets the people decide what to do with his prisoners;” etc. Peary writes that “common men are elevated to Alexander’s level,” given that “Eisenstein films them with a camera tilted upward and sets them in the foreground against the gray sky (there is always space behind them) so that they look enormous, like heroic epic figures of Alexander’s magnitude.”

He points out how important it is that “we see the soldiers” in battle, not Alexander, and mentions “a subplot in which each of two friendly soldiers [Vasili Buslai and Gavrilo Oleksich] hopes to win the hand of a young woman [Valentina Ivashova] by fighting more gallantly than the other,” which comes across “like a stock Hollywood storyline.”

Peary inaccurately adds, “Only in this case the woman is also a warrior, fighting alongside the men”; this is actually a different female protagonist (Aleksandra Danilova) who nonetheless plays an important and distinctive role later on:

Peary notes that “Eisenstein’s picture is known for its remarkable close-ups”:


… its “innovative use of the frame (whereby action is taking place in several different planes and as far back as the eye can see)”:

… the “beautiful shots of man and landscape”:

… a “mix of realism and theatricality, gorgeous pageantry”:

… “and Sergei Prokofiev’s grand score.”

He asserts that “the climactic Battle on the Ice, a lengthy [37-minute], precisely directed sequence that employs thousands of warriors and horses, is perhaps the greatest battle scene in movie history” (at least up to that time), and “can’t be described properly without actually seeing it”:


He adds that he suspects “Eisenstein received special pleasure from directing the segment in which the ice breaks and hundreds of Germans drown,” given that we “are seeing Russia itself literally swallow invaders.”

Peary concludes his review by writing, “I admit some Russian classics are boring, but not this masterpiece.” While I agree this film is masterfully made on every level — especially given the severe Stalinist constraints Eisenstein was working under — it’s not a film I personally would return to numerous times, other than to analyze it from a stylistic perspective. I’m most taken with the striking costumes and sets, which effectively hearken back to a distant time and place. With that said, it’s most definitely worth a one-time look by all film fanatics.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Fine sets, costumes, direction, and editing

  • Sergei Prokofiev’s score

Must See?
Yes, simply for its historical significance within Russian cinema.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant
  • Important Director

Links: