MovieChat Forums > Ivan Groznyy (1947) Discussion > Watched it in class: Funny/Crazy Acting

Watched it in class: Funny/Crazy Acting


What was up with all the crazy poses and absurd eye motions?

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I would've thought the larger-than-life acting was both a consequence of Eisenstein's not having completely shaken his earlier silent roots, where such acting would be required in the place of sound to fully communicate the emotions, and as a match to the scale of most of the picture in order to mythologize the legacy of Ivan.
There's also the consideration that the characters in essence have a symbolic basis in animals: Ivan, for example, is a bird; Efrosinia a snake.
By the second picture, the movie's movements have essentially made it into a twisted form of Busby Berkeley. I enjoyed it, but I suppose the melodrama may be a bit too over-the-top for many.

You ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?
Yeah, he told me you're gay.
*BANG!*

reply

You and a few of my classmates . . . seems to be the reaction by many, especially those who can't handle expressionism and many of the stylistic traits of movies before 1950. I, myself, didn't look for realism and appreciated how severe and stylized everything was. I loved the intensity of everyone because it was like watching a cartoon. Part II is even more amazing, with it's color sequence and songs, but if you didn't like the acting in Part I, you'll abhor Part II. I just think it's interesting how reactionary students can be towards a film like this. Not everyone wants to watch Seven, Fight Club, and the Dark Knight over and over again.

reply

I didn't hate it. I just thought facial expressions were odd and unnatural.

reply