Tuesday, 6 May 2014

Ivan the partial… Ivan the Terrible (1944 + 1946) with Vladimir Ashkenazy, Philharmonia Orchestra, Royal Festival Hall



It’s not often that I fail to gush but I have to admit to feeling slightly let down by tonight’s Scenes from Ivan the Terrible… at least in cinematic terms. But it’s not Eisenstein’s fault

It seems odd that for a partnership lauded as creating one of the most innovative melds of music and pictures, we were limited to excerpts from the visual part as background to the full orchestral majesty of the music. If we can immerse ourselves in five hours of Carl Davis and Abel Gance we can surely handle a mere three of the Sergei’s Prokofiev and Eisenstein.


That entire aside, the music was stunning and Vladimir Ashkenazy conducted his 120 piece plus choir and orchestra with amazing energy and control. The opening section was a performance of Prokofiev’s Scythian Suite which felt very progressive not least because I remember famed electricity-wasters, Emerson, Lake and Palmer performing a rocked up version of the Enemy God section. This orchestral version had more clout though and you can see why the composer was such an influence on Emerson, Wakeman and the other caped keyboardists.

Then the choir came onstage in such numbers that their entrance resembled the scene in Part 1 where thousands of people come to pay their respects to Tsar Ivan. They were joined by soloists Lilli Paasikivi and Nathan Berg for the performance of an oratorio accompanied by excerpts from both Ivan Part 1 and 2.

Coronation gossip
This was musically a success but without the films’ full-length narrative to explain it, the emotional impact was undermined. Eisenstein described Prokofiev’s music as “plastic” – “it never remains merely illustrative…” but it’s not elastic… and I felt torn between trying to understand the film as it jumped between scenes and this complex, powerful and impactful music. Even this oratorio was concocted in the sixties by a British composer as Prokofiev had neglected to do this in the manner of his pervious scores.

But, how can I really make sense of it all without seeing the full films? Hang on… goes off to watch the Criterion DVD set of Parts 1 and 2…


Oh my… this has more subtext than a Shakespearean film with German sub-titles!

Eisenstein idea for Ivan came in the early war years and the thrust of Part 1 seems very much a propagandist one – calling on the viewers to support the legitimacy of the Russian state against the invading Europeans (with the notable exception of England and Good Queen Bess I) and reminding them how hard-fought the country’s unification had been in the 1500s when Ivan, previously the Duke of Moscow, declared himself the Tsar of all Russia.

Mikhail Nazanov, Vladimir Ashkenazy and Vladimir Balashov
Parallels with Stalin are clear and the wonder is just how much Joe let past: was he flattered by this sympathetic portrait of the dynamic leader able to bend an entire country to his will?

Ivan (Nikolay Cherkasov) pushes away the compromises of traditional noble support – and the landowners (c.f. the Kulaks and all others in the way of fast-tracked agrarian to industrial economic development) – in favour of men such as Alexei Basmanov (Amvrosi Buchma) a commoner who owed everything to Ivan. They formed a ring of steel around the Tsar, their own interests intricately linked to his own.

Mikhail Nazanov and Lyudmila Tselikovskaya
From his opening coronation Eisenstein sets out Ivan’s majesty and his radical agenda. Surrounded by family and vested interest he is crowned in splendour with gold coins poured carefully over his head symbolising a baptism of sheer wealth and power. He them proclaims his intention to unit Russia and to fight off the enemies at her borders in Europe who exert a stranglehold on her supplies. He will take money from the nobles and the church to fund the creation of a new army.

Ivan's aunt Efrosinia (the magnificent Serafima Birman) looks on plotting to place her own son in his place, Vladimir (Pavel Kadochnikov), a grown man with limited mental faculties: his mother’s pawn. The camera swings around the cathedral to show other opposition mostly the decadent and the over confident.

Serafima Birman and Pavel Kadochnikov
Then there are Ivan’s two best friends, the pious Piotr (Vladimir Balashov) who decides to follow holy orders rather than support this new absolutism and Prince Andrei Kurbsky (Mikhail Nazanov) – jealous and proud like a brother who just happens to have an eye on Ivan’s intended Tsarina Anastasia (Lyudmila Tselikovskaya).

Anastasia and Ivan are duly married in another stunningly choreographed set piece only to be interrupted by a minor revolt put down by Ivan’s sheer force of will – all very flattering for the film’s ultimate editor up in the Kremlin. But I wonder if there are parallels to be drawn with Powell and Pressburger’s propaganda films of the same period? Both sets of film-makers were trying to inspire the right kind of response from audiences rather than just be overly-didactic. They also smuggled in extra meaning about the powers that be – a call to the more discerning viewers to think beyond slavish loyalties and find deeper motivations.

The attack on Kazan
Ivan goes to war and there’s a massed battle as he defeats the Kazan through guile – digging deep to lay explosives underneath their fort – even though Kurbsky is doubtful.

Ivan returns home almost unchallenged and yet when he falls ill, few are willing to swear allegiance to his baby son. He survives to take revenge on his faint-hearted noblemen but his enemies, The Boyars, are willing to stop at nothing and poison his wife.

Lyudmila Tselikovskaya
Ivan reels from this blow as his armies face defeat abroad – Kurbsky surrendering to the Poles – and all looks lost. He withdraws from Moscow and is finally given the strength to return by a massed march of his people: one of the most spectacular scenes as thousands snake across the snow to support their Tsar. One particular shot of Ivan’s wizened face in profile against the pure white sky as his follows move towards him is worth the price of admission alone. Full marks to cinematographers Andrei Moskvin and Eduard Tisse - animated Bill Brandt.


All this Uncle Joe liked: the leader given power and legitimacy by his people and set to conquer all in their name, but he was less please with Part 2 filmed directly afterwards. This showed the Tsar gradually losing his grip as paranoia robs him of friends and makes him increasingly reliant on the men who he had elevated and who therefore owed him everything.

Stalin had lost his own wife in 1932 (she killed herself) and you wonder how much he could see the parallels in Ivan’s own behaviour without Anastasia… people did have a habit of dying around Stalin and he lost the ability to trust quite early on himself.

The Polish court
Whatever he detected in Part 2 it was enough for him to stop its distribution and it didn’t see the light of day until 1958 during the Khrushchev years. It still feels very much like the immediate follow-up it was, using the same sets and the odd shot from Part 1.

The film sees Ivan rising to meet the challenge of the Boyars, the leading nobility, for whom his aunt is the prime mover. She wants to elevate her son to Tsar and eventually plots to kill Ivan after he refuses to be curbed by the influence of his former friend Piotr, Bishop of Moscow, and orders the brutal killing of potential insurrectionists.

The State and the Church clash: Ivan and Piotr
Having dressed in black for most of the two films, suddenly Aunt Efrosinia is wearing white and gently cradling Vladimir in order to encourage his ambition… the lines between good and bad blur accordingly.

Vladmir goes to a party with Cousin Ivan and Eisenstein shifts to full colour to show the revels as Ivan’s men spin across the screen in a blur of red motion. They are led by Basmanov's son Fyodor (Mikhail Kuznetsov) cross-dressing to show the decadent nature of Ivan’s own cadre: just as bad as those they have replaced?


Another commoner Malyuta Skuratov (Mikhail Zharov) has become Ivan's eyes and ears, leading his secret police and managing the disposal of unwanted opposition.

All comes to a head when a plot to assassinate Ivan in the cathedral goes disastrously wrong…

Mikhail Kuznetsov, Pavel Kadochnikov and Vladimir Ashkenazy
Eisenstein was already filming Part 3 when Stalin put the brakes on Part 2 and the four reels that were filmed have seemingly disappeared. The director jokingly referred to the films as his “suicide note” and, possibly as a result of the stress of making them he died in 1948 putting an end to one of the most influential partnerships in film: Prokovief ceased his involvement in cinema.

The films remain a highly-stylised and challenging watch for modern audiences, with much angular posturing and jerky, almost balletic movement: I don’t recall seeing a film with such signature movements.


Nikolay Cherkasov is superb at the Tsar with the ingrained path to destiny. Power corrupts and absolute power makes you grow an absolutely long straggly beard!

So… after all this do I understand the music better? Yes of course, certain themes are clearer as are many of the characters who appear in disjointed form in the excerpts especially friend Kurbsky doubly doomed by his ambition and love of Anastasia to betray his Tsar and in doing so, destroy his faith in friendship, trust and people.


The soundtrack is so much a part of the narrative, interwoven with character and development from the strange almost mechanistic movements of the cathedral bells to the heroic themes for Ivan and many moods: maybe one day they will show the complete films and score live… we can take it, really!

Meanwhile, the Criterion Edition is an excellent print – better than was used at the RFH – and is available from Amazon and other online retailers.

Saturday, 3 May 2014

The music of chance... A Woman of Paris (1923)



Charlie Chaplin wrote, produced and directed this film and, by 1976, had even written the music but the one thing he didn’t do was appear in it (almost*).  A Woman of Paris was intended to be a vehicle for his comedy co-star and ex-partner, Edna Purviance and himself to show how they could do more serious work. At the time it fell a little flat and didn’t deliver the big hit his fellow United Artists had hoped for, but there’s much to admire in the film and, in the end, it doesn’t pull it’s punches even when veering close to a sentimental ending: it’s a story of passion, bad timing and those sad compromises that can get in the way of life.

Stealing away as father looks on
There are Germanic touches in the sets and lighting as well as the lightness of touch of Lubitsch: Charlie had certainly been watching the competition: the film feels more European than American but what would you expect from a boy from Kennington. But the themes and the timing – sometimes comic and otherwise tragic – are all his own.

The film opens in a French village as a young woman, Marie St Clair (Purviance – what a strange name Edna!) nervously packs her bags in her room. Her father creeps up the stairs and locks her door as Chaplin gradually reveals the scenario: an elopement is being planned and both sets of parents disagree.

Familial disapproval all round...
Marie’s lover Jean Millet (Carl Miller) helps her climb down from outside her room and they walk to his house where an equally frosty reception awaits. What has caused this parental disapproval is not made clear but it’s deep-seated. Refused entry back home, the couple head for the station to catch a train to Paris: their city of hope. Jean leaves Marie to go and collect his things but, tragedy strikes when his father has a heart attack and dies…

A fateful miss-communication then occurs as the lovers telephone each other and Marie, thinking than Jean has just got cold feet, heads of to Paris alone…

Debonair Pierre
A year later she seems to have found her feet exceptionally well, being the kept woman of Pierre Revel (Adolphe Menjou), “the most eligible bachelor in Paris”, living in luxury and spending her time socialising or being prepared for the next occasion along with her proto-flapper buddies Fifi (Betty Morrissey) and Paulette (Malvina Polo).

Paulette and Fifi on the lookout for some action...
Everything is well except for the fact that Pierre is planning to marry the wealthiest spinster in Paris. The story is revealed in the papers but Marie doesn’t know until her helpful friends show her, she hides her disappointment well: she’s learned a great deal of city ways. Pierre tells her that it won’t change their relationship – tres Parisian n’est pas! – but she’s not convinced.

She sulks and stays in whilst her friends head off to an outrageous party in the Latin Quarter… Chaplin gives a good party and clearly enjoys showing the risqué side of life as the drunken debauch is topped off by an elegant striptease in which a young woman (Bess Flowers - sometimes dubbed the Queen of the Hollywood Extras) is gradually revealed to the on-screen audience as a white sheet is slowly unwrapped: glasses and monocles are raised even by the women and a drunken man feints in dis-belief.

Bess Flowers does her turn
Fifi tells Maria she can’t miss out and she heads over only to open the door to the wrong address, a small apartment home to a struggling artist: it’s Jean. So chance has re-united them and whilst their guards are now up, Marie invites Jean to paint her.

As Jean arrives wide-eyed at her opulent home Marie finds out with a shock the reason for his none-appearance and her sympathy shifts back but there can be no simple reconciliation especially when Marie sneaks at peek at her portrait… rather than paint her in the stunning satin gown she has chosen, Jean depicts her as she was when he left her… This can’t be healthy and it’s a very neat touch from the director.

What he sees and what he paints...
But as romance is re-kindled, parental dissatisfaction plays a part again as Jean’s mother – disapproving of Marie’s lifestyle – makes him promise not to marry her and in enduring guilt her agrees only for Marie to overhear at the door…


Spoiler hints? Not overt but… So the heartbreak begins again and Marie tries to decide between the man she loved and the lifestyle she adores provided by the man she likes. Heck, we’ve probably all been there right?

There will be no easy answers and Chaplin veers towards but ultimately manages to avoid too much pathos with his neat but a-typical ending which ends the film in suitably rounded dramatic fashion.

Miller and Menjou face off
Whilst not an absolute classic, there is much to admire in the film and whilst you can understand contemporary audiences wanting more Charlie and more comedy, this is an entertaining, human story about the nature of chance: opportunities need to be grasped and you need to trust your own judgement and make your own choices. His retrospective score mostly works well but I found it occasionally intrusive, almost running grooves into a narrative that for him was so well known: foreshadowing events in this "drama of fate".

The leads perform well with Menjou on top form as the easy-going, quick-witted charmer who is so sure of his relationships and himself. Carl Miller’s Jean is all but destroyed by his tragedy but tries to find reward through art, he’s thwarted by his mother and bad timing.

Edna
As for the star, Edna P performs well and there’s something understated in her performance that you might view as force of habit from deliberate under-response in her comedies. But she gives a nuanced, heart-breaking turn as the village girl who gets everything she wanted except, perhaps, for love.

A Woman of Paris is available as part of the massive Charlie Chaplin: Collection box set at Movie Mail or along with A King in New York via Amazon - even on Blu-Ray at the latter. It won’t make you laugh as much as the Gold Rush but it’ll get you like City Lights whether you want it to or not!

Fibber!
*PS Charlie reputedly turns up as a railway porter carry a massive trunk… he just couldn’t help himself.

Sunday, 27 April 2014

The big sky… Heaven's Gate (1980)



Some people still get cross about this movie as if it’s a personal affront but, come on, did Michael Cimino really let you down? He pursued his dream at ruinous cost to himself and United Artists much in the way of an over-ambitious modern soccer club – even allowing for inflation, his $44 million budget would barely cover the annual salaries for PSG, Chelsea or Manchester City.

What he produced was a commercial failure but one that has had a growing amount of critical respect. Watching the restored director’s cut – supervised by Cimino – it felt like watching a really good HBO mini-series but with extra sky and impossibly huge mountains. Whatever else its failings, Heaven’s Gate is an extraordinary good looking film. 


Having not seen it for almost twenty years, this “new” version makes more sense in narrative as well as stylistic terms. Its pacing and granularity is now explicable as part of the greater whole and Cimino’s eye for detail creates an immersive experience unlike few others before or since.

I feel a tenuous personal connection to Heaven’s Gate as it was partly filmed in Oxford when I was an impressionable student, I knew some of the extras and I remember seeing the cameras and crew at Mansfield College, one of the newer colleges. Oxford’s a puzzling choice to double for Harvard with some of the buildings pre-dating Columbus by a full two decades... but that’s showbiz.

Kris in line at the Sheldonian Theatre and dancing around Mansfield College
This section and the one that closes the film, act as bookends depicting the main character’s class and position. James Averill (Kris Kristofferson who was a Rhodes Scholar at my college, Merton, many years before me…), is an educated man of East-cost culture who somehow gets embroiled in the base conflicts of the West.  The director’s time in establishing this is worth it for the contrast it shows once James and his friend, class wit, William "Billy" Irvine (John Hurt), get involved in the shooting.


The film is based on the Johnson County War of the 1890s although Cimino is going for representational and not historical accuracy, introducing new themes as he presents the conflict of rich cattle owners versus immigrants. The immigrants gather to enjoy life at a tented hall called Heaven’s Gate run by John L. Bridges (Jeff Bridges). Here they roller skate dance and enjoy the little freedom they have from struggle: a slither of Heaven.

Christopher Walken
One of James’ friends, Nathan D. "Nate" Champion (Christopher Walken) is an enforcer for the Stock Growers Association and we see him shoot dead one desperate cattle rustler, leaving his distraught wife as he heads off into the prairie framed by the rip in their sheet left by his shot gun blast.

This man was caught red-handed – literally – as he butchered a stolen cow but the stockmen are about to elevate justice to a whole new level of brutality. They meet and are persuaded by leader Frank Canton (Sam Waterston) to support the despatch of 125 hired guns to execute a list of 125 locals labelled as rustlers. All a far cry from university legal studies and, shockingly, based on an actual death list of 25 small-holders.

Billy witnesses the decision in a drunken stupor barely able to stand, he meets James who responds by laying out Canton… but can he stop the slaughter?

He didn't even bother to wrap it!
James heads back to base presenting a gift of a smart new trap to his lover Ella Watson (Isabelle Huppert), who runs the local bordello. The casting of the very French Huppert was apparently one of the first signs of trouble on the film as the producers didn’t feel she could cope with the English dialogue. Cimino put his foot down and carried on doing so as the production ran many times over budget. A sit turned out and as one of the producers now admits, Isabelle was superb – when is she ever not?

Ella also loves Nate but, in a neat testament to the ground rules of the time, always made him pay as a customer. We’re confused to see what we thought was a cold-blooded mercenary so awkward with his feelings.

Isabelle Huppert
James obtains the unlucky list and at Heaven’s Gate reads it out the terrified immigrants. Ella’s on it for the crime of accepting stolen cattle in exchange for favours but, in spite of James’ prompting she refuses to leave.

As tension runs high violence descends as the men ride in and Johnson County descends in stylised late-seventies havoc. Can James really stand aside to let his Eastern friend enforce the rule of law in such a callous and unjust way or will he make a stand with the immigrants? Can he forgive Ella for also loving Nate and the latter for loving the former… will this love triangle doom them all?

The climactic battle
For a film with such perfectionist tendencies you could say that the human motivations seem less than well-defined but then with actors possessing the skill of Hurt, Huppert, Bridges and Walken this can be a positive strength. Life is messy and human behaviour often bafflingly obtuse: they revel in the space Cimino allows.

Kristofferson doesn’t have their range but he more than makes up for this in presence: his face is a mask of masculine resolution deliberately obscuring his thoughts even when he’s angry.

Roller skating was genuinely a craze in the 1890's
It all feels very real and the earnestness you occasionally sense would nowadays be smothered by the hyper-violence enabled by CGI and other digital processing.

And then there’s that big, blue sky and those huge mountains, the dust filled rooms and the huge sets showing mankind in mass transit one their way to who knows where, who knows when. Vilmos Zsigmond’s cinematography is exceptional throughout and the film feels whole again.

Huppert and Kristofferson outside a cabin now in Jeff Bridges garden - fact fans!
I watched the 219 minute restored cut which is readily available from MovieMail and other online retailers.  It’s on MGM who obtained the rights from the wreckage of UA… don’t blame Michael Cimino it takes more than one auteur to break the bank and many weak executives to let them: where was the risk management?

The business may have died but the creative lives on.