MovieChat Forums > Ivan Groznyy (1947) Discussion > Suppressed homosexuality throughout?

Suppressed homosexuality throughout?


When I watched Ivan the Terrible Parts I & II, I was struck by what seemed to be an undercurrent of homosexual imagery and tendencies. Here are a number of instances. Although Ivan's cousin Vladimir Staritsky is described in the film as childish, weak-willed and what we would now call mentally challenged, he comes off very effeminate, a typical case of an effete mama's boy smothered by his dominant mother. Prince Andrei Kurbsky is of course Ivan's rival for power and suitor of his wife Anastasia, but he appears to be kept from outright rebellion by his fascination with Ivan as well. When Ivan appoints him commander of the army against Poland and Livonia, they engage in a weirdly stylized stop-start tango-like dance which suggests something more than loyal affiliation. All semblance of a common victor-vassal relationship is gone at the start of Part II, when the Polish king Sigismund is foppishly languishing on his throne, and Kurbsky eagerly kisses his sword and then his hand.

Then there are the bare-chested bodies of the Tatar (Mongol) prisoners of war, whose contorted poses suggest twisted fascination with the male body. Surprisingly, Ivan's oprichniki or personal guards seem to be made up nearly entirely of handsome young men in their twenties, who're also great at dancing! Finally, the flashback with young Ivan is meant to show his transformation from a helpless orphan to a ruthless ruler with a grudge against the Boyars, but his looks and his poses suggest girlish tendencies more than anything else. To top it all, we know from the aborted Part III that Queen Elizabeth was to be played by a man! Anyone who's seen it the same way and can explain if this was intentional, if the Soviet regime noticed this and loathed it, or if it was perhaps an unintentional expression of the director's own latent inclinations?

reply

One must be really spoiled by the 21 century to see homosexual undertones in Ivan the Terrible, which is basically a theatrical play filmed as a propaganda movie. You know, theater, where overacting, dancing and cross-dressing is a usual thing.

reply

Thanks for your comment. By the way, I've lived far longer in the 20th century than the 21st so far, and it just struck me as something remarkable, in a way I would never view a traditional play by, say, Shakespeare.

It was also striking to me because it was made under a very repressive regime, which tends to outlaw anything that goes against 'the law of nature'. But perhaps you're right: an extreme form of male hero-worship, with lots of awestruck, gasping admirers, can easily be interpreted now as gay, just like the cult of the strong male body and the uniform can lend itself to such interpretations.

Let me add, on the other hand, that though these observations are strictly my own, I'm certainly not the only one who has read this into his movies. I see them reflected in a lot of essays and biographical notes about Eisenstein I now find online.

For instance, Dwight MacDonald wrote about Eisenstein's homosexual tendencies in 1969, saying that they distorted his historical perspective.

Quote from MacDonald on Ivan: "Eisenstein's homosexuality now has free play... There are an extraordinary number of young, febrile and – there's no other word – pretty males,whose medieval bobbed hair makes them look startlingly like girls. Ivan has a favourite, a flirtatious, bold-eyed police agent, and many excuses are found for having Ivan put his hands on the handsome young face... There are two open homosexuals in the film, both villains. The minor one is the King of Poland, who is shown in his effete court camping around in a fantastically huge ruff... the major one is the very odd character of Vladimir... It is too much to speculate that Eisenstein identified himself with the homosexual Vladimir, the helpless victim of palace intrigues who just wanted to live in peace (read: to make his films in peace...)"

Also critics Parker Tyler, who died in 1974, and Andrew Britton, who died in 1994.

Dicky

reply

Sorry, I wasn't implying that you are too young. I was generally talking about modern times. A lot of people try to judge history and historical figures from modern perspective. Even now you mention Stalin's regime, yet at the time the film was made homosexuality was "against the law of nature" in most countries, including USSR, US and Britain.

There are many myths surrounding Eisenstein. For example, he is considered Jewish, even though his mother was Russian and his father - a prolific engineer - had Swedish and German parents and even wrote a detailed autobiography. Which makes sense, as many German engineers worked for Russian Empire.

I also read about Eisentstein's homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, even impotence. Some point out that he was shy with women and felt comfortable with male friends. He also had no kids. But all this can be said about millions of people, so it seems like speculations to me.

You pointed out "Kurbsky eagerly kisses his sword and then his hand", which is absolutely natural for the 16th century. And as far as Russian culture goes: do you know that, for example, when old-time friends met, they used to kiss each other into lips three times? I was actually surprised Ivan didn't kiss Philip. There's also nothing weird about touching and hugging. Maybe Americans are more sensitive about these things.

As for "young, pretty males", those were typical for the cinema of that period (both Soviet and Hollywood), and especially for propagandists. "Good guys" had noble, pretty, smart faces. "Bad guys" (boyars, Efrosinia) were shown as ugly, disgusting degenerates. Same goes to Vladimir. By saying that he is "an open homosexual" MacDonald shows that he didn't understand the film. It was said in open text that Vladimir was "an idiot with a mind of a child". Which isn't historically accurate (as well as many other events), but, well, Ivan the Terrible was supposed to look like a noble hero among traitors and freaks.

reply

Great, informative comments! I guess it can be hard to strike a balance between valid modern psychological insights and reading too much into a work of art, which can easily be done, as you point out, if you apply present-day or limited cultural standards. By these standards, nearly every old film or book can be considered racist, misogynist, anti-gay, jingoistic, fervently pro-religion etc., which unfortunately leads to many of them being banned or at least frowned upon in hypersensitive American circles.

Conversely, I know that gay or liberal-minded critics, perhaps for lack of positive gay role models in history, are apt to reinterpret male relationships such as in 'buddy movies' (lots of war movies, westerns, gangster, prison and gang dramas, detectives with Sherlock Holmes and Watson-type roles, anything cartoon-based with the likes of Batman and Robin) as subliminal homosexuality. Similarly, there are feminist readings of books and plays which are normally considered traditional and bourgeois.

Anyway, it's an interesting debate that isn't likely to end soon!

Best,

Dicky

reply

Agreed. A lot of things changed throughout history and especially in XX century. For example, when Lenin came to power in 1917, he immediately decriminalized homosexuality. For around 20 years there was a freedom of sex in the USSR! Only in the middle of 30s Stalin made it a crime again.

Eisenstein also changed the history of cinema with his innovative directing and montage. He came from a rich family, he was well-educated, modern, spent several years abroad. At the same time, he took an active part in revolution, in World War II, was close to Stalin and was one of the biggest propagandists of his time. So even the suggestion that he "just wanted to make his films in peace" is arguable.

reply

Thank again. I didn't know these historical facts.

You know, I find it hard to make sense of 'Ivan', but it certainly is a spellbinding, profoundly disturbing and just plain 'weird', totally individual piece of cinema.

I know a bit of expressionism, but, from Alexandr Nevsky onwards, Eisenstein takes it to the hilt here, I think to such delirious heights and stylization, that it appears to contradict the very propaganda it purports to achieve. That is, showing Ivan as a ruthless ruler corrupted by his power and paranoia in the end.

That's why I feel I have to look for a lot of hidden meaning, because it doesn't make sense to me as straight propaganda, unlike 'Nevsky', for instance.

When I think of the movements as stylized to the point of a ballet, and corruption of power parading as 'gay camp', it does make more sense to me, except that I'm not aware that such a notion of 'gay camp' existed back then, being an invention of what I think at least the late Fifties, early Sixties.

And then there is the very *lack* of montage which we've come to associate with Eisenstein, now reduced to mainly very static shots with stop-start 'zoom'-like effects.

Well, I think it's the true mark of great cinema if it can be so bewildering, fascinating, and frustrating at the same time!

I think this review summarizes the confusing experience well:

http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/1131-high-and-low-eisenstein-s- ivan-the-terrible

Dicky





reply

[deleted]

I laughed out loud at the Polish court scene- the gay content was not at all 'suppressed' there, it was totally over the top! The king's effeminate posing and the sword-kissing-- come on! Most Russians then as now were very homophobic, so this was another way to portray Russia's enemies as contemptible and corrupt. If Eisenstein himself was queer to some extent, perhaps he just had a good time producing that scene and understood that mainstream viewers would respond to it in their own way.

The actor playing Ivan as a boy was very 'pretty' and somewhat feminized. That portrayal did seem to me to be slightly eroticized, which is getting into unsettling pederasty territory. I think that's open to interpretation though.

reply

Thanks for your nice reply! I agree with you, also with the previous poster, that depicting your enemies as effete, ineffectual and decadent and/or grotesquely cruel and despotic, is a standard technique of propaganda movies and characteristic of a lot of westerns, action movies, you name it.

As such, it isn't something that you would hold against the maker, rather the opposite.

It was other scenes involving the token (?) hero Ivan and his court, that made me rethink this opposition, and wonder if there wasn't something more to these characterizations, that is, suppressed longing or sublimated sympathy and identification.

The rather dainty, almost balletic presentation of young Ivan, similar to other, somewhat older courtiers, instead of just a cruelly mistreated boy, certainly was another indication.

Dicky

reply

Btw, the character of cousin Vladimir came across to me as just extremely weak and infantile rather than effeminate or queer.

reply

I find it intriguing that Eisenstein chose to have Fyodor Basmanov perform the feast song and dance wearing a woman's dress. This seems to be a reference to a 1863 novel 'Knyaz Serebrenni' by Aleksey Tolstoy, who seemed to believe that, based on some historians' reports, which are in turn based on rumours spread by some of Ivan's contemporaries, the relationship between Ivan and Fyodor was not strictly business.
BTW, Fyodor was often described as a very comely lad, while a fearless and capable warrior at the same time.

On the other hand, Eisenstein might have implied that such cross-dressing (if it ever happened at all) was done purely in jest.

reply