Um, not what I thought it would be. - Aleksandr Nevskiy (1939) Discussion

[–] ThomasWillis 18 years ago

The music for the movie was recorded by a second-rate orchestra on crappy technology. Listen to the Chicago Symphony Orchestra/London Symphony Chorus version to get the real effect of the music.

"These go To Eleven" -Nigel Tuffnel

reply

[–] ryouba 18 years ago

Yeah, the score for the film is insanely awesome. We're playing this piece for our university symphony orchestra, and it's just fantastic. Me and some of the music professors here were talking the other day how Prokofiev was ahead of his time when he composed the score. I mean, listen to "Battle on the Ice" and try telling me that it wouldn't be used in a movie today.

If you perform this on a stage ever, you'll see the true power behind the piece. :P

reply

[–] bok602 18 years ago

I cannot agree with you more!

This is one of the most atrociously recorded movies of all time! There is not even the excuse frequently given to older films that "sound recording techniques were in their infancy," because this was 1938 and sound had been around long enough for sound engineers to know what they were doing.

The fault here lies squarely with the technicians AND Prokofiev himself because he inexplicably decided that he, too, wanted to play Leopold Stokowski's game of becoming a sound engineer and muddled with the recording process. One account has him telling the sound engineers to insert the microphones directly into the bell of the horns for certain passages; another tells of Prokofiev demanding the engineers to deliberately distort certain passages to reflect the "distortion" of the enemy.

What Prokofiev failed to take into account was that Stokowski had been working with Bell Telephone sound laboratories since at least 1930 to devise ways to improve sound recording/transmission techniques -and knew what he was doing.

Stokowski's hi-fidelity, wide-range and STEREO recordings from 1931-32 provide jaw-dropping examples of just how far sound recording had advanced and were advancing.

True, Hollywood lagged behind the recording industry in some respects, but by 1938 there was absolutely no excuse for the NEVSKY soundtrack to sound so abominable.

"If you don't know the answer -change the question."

reply

[–] bradford-1 18 years ago

On Oct. 19, 20 & 21, the New York Philharmonic is going to perform the score as it accompanies the film. Not sure how this will be accomplished; I guess the existing music can be digitally removed and the ensemble will take its place. I'm taking off from work on the 19th so I can be there. I've always wanted to hear the score played correctly and now I'll have the chance. If you're in the NYC area those days, try to attend!

reply

[–] Beadgirl47 18 years ago

My boss is taking me to see that... I'm so excited! I've never seen it and I can't wait!

Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion.

reply

[–] metaplum 18 years ago

I was wondering if someone would comment about this. I saw last night's performance and was blown away by the NYP's performance. I had a bit of trouble with the film's rather shameless propaganda (which was no doubt more Stalin than Eisenstein - and, yes, I have similar problems with US-centric jingoism, too), but was wholly impressed by the film's cinematography and the construction of the battle sequence. A stunning example of early cinema.

reply

[–] vandreferreiramonteiro 17 years ago

It was the first sound movie comming from Russia, so the tecnology (russian, that is)excuses it.

The version in public domain (video google, most DVDs around thye world...) are of the non restored version. A high quality restauration was made in 1992, with lots of other russian pics restaurations. Anyway, you two ( bok602 and the creator of this board) are just too much focused on the pacage, and too less on the brilliancy of the content.

reply

[–] bok602 17 years ago

I beg to differ...

I fully appreciate the film for what it is, what it achieves and what it has produced in the way of influence.

My contention is not with the film at all, but with the SOUND. It is simply an abominable, virtually unlistenable recording.

I have seen the restored prints and the sound is still wretched beyond description.

"If you don't know the answer -change the question."

reply

[–] Ramenbo 17 years ago

I saw this with the LA Philharmonic and Master Chorale performing the score. Amazing.

reply

[–] Tchoutoye 13 years ago

First Russian sound film? Nonsense. Dziga Vertov made his first sound film (Entuziazm: Simfoniya Donbassa) 7 years before Aleksandr Nevskiy.

reply

[–] NylonN 16 years ago

You're putting far too much of the blame on Prokofiev himself. A far larger issue was the fact that Stalin was only allowing "home-grown" technology to be used, and the sound recording technology in Russia as of 1938 had reached the point that Hollywood was at in 1929. Also, after Stalin saw an early cut of the movie he gave it his stamp of approval, and the producers were terrified to make any sort of changes, despite repeated requests from Eisenstein. My point is, Alexander Nevsky is a great film with some definite faults, but far too much of the blame for those faults is put on Eisenstein and Prokofiev, ignoring the fact that they were working within a totalitarian system that severely limited their artistic and technical means.

reply

[–] bok602 16 years ago

Also, after Stalin saw an early cut of the movie he gave it his stamp of approval, and the producers were terrified to make any sort of changes...

Brilliant, Watson! You just reminded me of one of my favorite examples of thst terror in reference to the score.

During the prelude to the Battle on the Ice the score is fully fleshed, fully orchestrated, and symphonic in scope, but then -rather inexplicably- they show an insert of the German camp's tent and the music sounds like somebody plinking out the theme with one fingler on a rusty, out of tune barroom piano. It is jarringly out of place,stops the film dead and (significantly) the moment has never been represented in any subsequent recordings of the score.

The story is that Stalin had, indeed, approved an early cut of the film, but that Prokofiev hadn't yet completed recording his epic score and that the scene in question had only been fitted with a piano demo track and the composer was not allowed to alter what Stalin had approved -even if it was to substitute the fully orchestrated recording of the piano temp track.

So what you hear in the film at that point is a solo piano temp track.

"If you don't know the answer -change the question."

reply

[–] rimbaud14 16 years ago

The problem with your argument is not that sound recording techniques were much more advanced in 1938 than you would expect, it's that Aleksandr Nevsky was not made in Hollywood. It was made in the Soviet Union, under Stalin's oppressive eye. Soviet technology at that time was light years behind the rest of the civilized world, and most sources recordings made in the Soviet Union were just plain awful, this wonderful score included. Inferior technology abounded in the Soviet period for mostly political reasons, so you can in no way expect that Hollywood's standard, or any standard developed by Bell or any other company, could be applied to the accepted Soviet norm of the time.

reply

[–] bjmherzen 17 years ago

I agree completely. I was fortunate enough some years ago to attend a screening of the movie with our local philharmonic playing the score live... Incredible!

reply

[–] robert3302 17 years ago

Get a clue. This was done in 1938. In Russia. Poor sharecroppers in Mississippi lived like royalty compared to most Russians at that time. This movie was an enormous accomplishment for its time and place. To compare it with what George Lucas would do in 2005 is nonsense. The story of Nevsky rousing impoverished peasants to defeat the greatest empires in the world (very relevant for Russia in 1938!), Eisenstein's passion, and the glory of Prokofiev's music utterly transcend the technical deficiencies. If Leonardo da Vinci had a Nikon digital camera, he would have made a much more accurate portrait of Mona Lisa. So what?

reply

[–] Dante-26 17 years ago

But not as beautiful a one...

reply

[–] D_vd_B 17 years ago

Indeed.

Alexandr Nevsky is one of the great movies. Had it been done today (an by someone else than Eisenstein) it would never have that sheer power.

I was the first pre-WWII movie that I ever saw and at first I was disapointed. But after the second viewing, I'm collecting Eisensteins films and other great older films.

And if I must make a list of best movie battles...The battle on the Ice is sure in the top 5 (alongside Waterloo(1970) and War and Peace(1968), both of a Russian director).

The thing that always strikes me are the white robes of the germans. The make a sheer contrast with the background, even in the snow. Dunno if it is intentional, but it symbols to me that they are the invaders and do not belong there (and I don't mean in any political/propaganda sence, just very simple good and evil).

reply

[–] Bassman4720 17 years ago

Im watching the film as I type this and in response to the white robes perhaps it could be a paralell to the uniforms the Wermacht wore in WWII?

reply

[–] D_vd_B 17 years ago

Could be. The german nobles are also taller than their subjects, as if they are big officers (somehow reminded me of them). And check the helmets of the german footsoldiers. Wehrmacht helmet or what? :p

reply

[–] FilioScotia 17 years ago

But so what? It's a great film. Who says propaganda can't be well made and even artistic? You have to think about the times and what was going on. The Russians have hated the Germans since ancient times, and the German invasion of the 13th century was just one of many reasons.

When Hitler signed a non-agression pact with Stalin in the late 30s, Stalin was probably the only person in Russia who actually thought Hitler would keep his word. Nobody else trusted him, and Eisenstein filmed Alexander Nevsky in the middle of all that mistrust and paranoia for the purpose of reminding the Russian people of who their leaders were making nice with, and to let the Germans know they hadn't forgotten about them.

Those victory speeches Prince Nevsky made directly to the camera in the closing scenes were aimed straight at Berlin. He was telling Hitler and the world in no uncertain terms that the Russian people would rise up and fight them to the death if they tried to invade Mother Russia again.

In the context of those times it must have been chilling to watch, and it's even more chilling in hindsight. Only one year after Nevsky came out, Hitler had invaded Russia, and before WWII was over the Germans had murdered more than 20 million Russians. More than two million people starved to death in the two year siege of Stalingrad. The movie Enemy at the Gates is a terrifying and brutally realistic view of what it was like in Stalingrad during that siege.

As for the Germans' white robes, there really was a Christian order of Teutonic Knights, and they really did invade Russia for the glory of the Roman Catholic Church, but mostly for their own glory.

It was just one more example of how evil people have misused Christianity for their own purposes over the centuries. It still goes on today, but contrary to what some people think, Christianity isn't to blame. The evil people are the ones to blame for what they did.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] agorman 17 years ago

Didn't you find the "Judas" comment and the punishment of the traitor a bit disturbing, in light of what we know about Stalin's purges? It seemed as if the movie ended with a threat to the enemies of "Rus" ie. the enemies of Stalin. It's strange how after all of the building up of the evil nature of the teutonic knights, the blame and vengeance is shifted to a traitorous Russian character, while the Germans are quickly released or ransomed. Of course, the Molotov Ribbentrop pact had yet to be broken, and the German's were still soviet allies, but I have a herd time believing that the traitor is there for merely dramatic reasons. In light of this, it's hard not to see this film as something of a horse's head in the bed of every Russian who saw it.

reply

[–] FilioScotia 17 years ago

I saw the film as pure Russian nationalism, and a powerful and ringing declaration of Russia's history of standing firm and united against invaders.

reply

[–] fearnotofman 16 years ago

Your history is off. The film was released in 1938. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was made in 1939. Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, 3 years after the film was released.

reply

[–] squeemu 17 years ago

The fact that you don't appreciate Prokofiev's score shows that you know nothing about good music.

reply

[–] kingofpredators 17 years ago

indeed the music is one of the best film scores ever and its very important, too! just listen to the battle on the ice, especially the choir part. many film composers are inspired by this music for a battle scene even today.

reply

[–] Hyman_Flomax 17 years ago

This was actually very dissapointing. Given all the critical praise that has been lauded towards this picture, its almost unfathomably dull for very long stretches; very uncharacteristic of Eisenstein. Through all of the reviews I've read, the film is deservedly praised for its musical score and for the intense and tastefully edited battle scene, but aside from that there really isn't any reason to see the film unless you're terribly interested in Soviet propaganda. Cineastes often neglect to mention the wooden acting and uninspired scripting. Even for Eisenstein, the many segments of characters barking nationalistic speeches of thinly veiled social relevance is far too palpable for someone of Eisenstein's stature; he must have been pretty desperate for Stalin's approval. It's still not much more than an unreservedly boring movie sandwiched between a stunning recreation of the Pskov massacre and a decent battle scene.

Certainly an important contribution to film history if more for what it is; a rallying cry for Soviet unity during a key time in their history, than for what it actually accomplishes. That's essentially the only reason to recommend it. Otherwise, just download the score and forget the rest.

The theater's too deep for me. I prefer bicycling.

reply

[–] guruguru0 16 years ago

You have to keep in mind that, not only was this one of the most brilliant works of a brilliant filmmaker, but that Eisenstein actively resisted the movement towards sound and sync (the first sound film was released in 1927). When he finally came around and could resist no more, he worked with the score and virtually painted the missing gaps of his picture with the music. If you look at his storyboards and his visual scoring, it falls perfectly with the finished picture. This was an absolute breakthrough for the time, well ahead of any of its contemporaries.
Eisenstein also had to sneak his way around the government agency Soyuzkino, the director of which thoroughly hated his guts. In order for him to work his magic, he had to make many sacrifices, not the least of which was his intellectual style. He picked up the sound and worked it as a compositional element. Sure, the foley wasn't the best and the current quality released on most DVD's is less than satisfying, but imagine if this had been recorded today, after many years of understanding sound fully, and in a 5.1 Dolby mix. It would be fantastic.
Watch solely for the soundtrack and it's matching visual cues. It fits better than most modern films, which is saying something about Eisenstein's actual understand of sound.

reply

[–] cwcascales 16 years ago

Please listen to Claudio Abbado's recording made with the London Symphony and Chorus. It is indeed the greatest music ever written for film- by a long shot.
Conductor: Claudio Abbado
Orchestra/Ensemble: London Symphony Chorus, London Symphony Orchestra, Chicago Symphony Orchestra
Catalog Num: Deutsche Grammophon 47419

Each time I hear it I'm just in wonder.

reply

[–] bing148 16 years ago

A technical masterpiece but story wise it left me completely cold

http://www.awardsseasoncentral.cjb.net/

reply