Customer Reviews for
Alexander Nevsky
Classic film marred by sound problems.
Alexander Nevsky (Sergei Eisenstein, 1938)
Round up one hundred film buffs and ask them what they remember best about Alexander Nevsky. Chances are at least ninety-five of them will give you the same answer: the battle on the ice. And yeah, for 1938, with Russian technology (which was running well behind what the U.S., Germany, and Japan had at the time), it's pretty darned impressive. While the movie does have its faults-- most of which have been rectified in various ways, if you're lucky enough to be able to catch a screening employing them-- for its time, it was still a technological marvel, perhaps the finest Russian film (save Eisenstein's own Battleship Potemkin) until Andrei Tarkovsky came along in 1969 with Andrei Rublev. That said, it's also liable to grate on American cultural nerves at present, given that apart from everything else, it's also a propaganda film, and I think we're supposed to be not liking the Russians again these days, or something.
And a propaganda film it most certainly is; cultural enmity between Russia and Germany stretches back to whichever countryman from one bonked a countryman of the other over the head with a rock, probably back in the Australopithecine era. And in the thirties, let's not forget, Germany was once again growing a bit big for its britches. Stalin wanted to make sure the Germans were told to lay off, and Eisenstein, taking the story of a thirteenth-century German invasion, was just the guy to provide the direction. (After all, Potemkin is to this day one of the finest propaganda films ever made, both from the standpoint of propaganda, and from the standpoint of just being a darned good movie.) Needless to say, he did almost a good a job on this, the story of Alexander Nevsky (Nikolai Cherkasov, who somewhat ironically would go on to play Franklin Roosevelt in Petrov's The Battle of Stalingrad), who rallies a bunch of hedge knights to stave off a Teutonic invasion after the Germans, yes, got too big for their britches. (While in 1938 it may have seemed like some of the scenes of carnage during the German invasion were overkill, one only has to look at history to ascertain that if anything, Eisenstein actually underplayed.) Then of course, after the battle, there's Nevsky breaking the fourth wall in order to tell the (presumably German) audience "hey, if you invade us again, you're going to get the same treatment." Pity Hitler didn't listen after signing that non-aggression pact. Those who forget history, etc.
The film's faults don't lie with anything Eisensteinian; as with Potemkin, the direction is perfect, the acting is surprisingly strong, the cinematography is sublime. The main technical fault, even with the restored editions, is the sound. Apocryphally, Stalin viewed an early cut of the film and loved it, so everyone involved with the production (except Eisenstein, who clamored for changes) was scared to do anything, including overlaying a full version of Prokofiev's celebrated score. That's why every once in a while the music cuts out and you hear what sounds like a demo tape; it is. Thus, if you can catch a screening with an orchestra providing the music, do so and you'll likely have a much better viewing experience. (I've never actually tried it, but I'd assume you could also score a full soundtrack recorded by a philharmonic-- I know both New York and Chicago have released them on CD-- and play that while watching the movie.) Bad sound or not, though, it's a movie well worth watching if you've got the patience for older films. *** ½
Alexander Nevsky
Eisenstein's first sound film is propaganda, in the best sense
Eisenstein's first sound film retells the battle of the ice of 1242, when the Russians under Alexander Nevsky defeated the Livonian knights, eager to bring Russia under Roman Catholicism. Made in 1938, Nevsky can be seen as a piece of propaganda: the Germanic knights, with their sinister (and somewhat goofy) helmets are obvious stand-ins for the Nazis. The butchery by the knights when they enter a Russian town seems a prophetic warning of the massacres of World War II. The film ends with a warning: those who came to Russia with the sword will die by the sword. Made in delicate black and white (somewhat reminiscent of a daguerreotype), it also marked Eisenstein's return to official favor. By the late 1920s, Stalin wanted Soviet filmmakers to stop experimentation and made movies that would be more populist and palatable to the Russian public. Eisenstein responded with his more accessible film. Nevsky's strong point is in its second half, which features the battle itself, and it is justly seen as a milestone in movie history: never before (and probably never after) a battle would be so vivid in the screen. Another strong point is Prokofiev's beautiful, haunting soundtrack (using a composer to score a movie was completely unusual at the time). One of its weaker points: the comic relief (in the form of two simpleton Russian warriors trying to woo a beautiful Russian peasant) is really jarring.Alexander Nevsky
Interesting little film
I just watched this film for my Russian history class. Thus, my professor, who is Russian, obviously deems it a worthwhile representation of 13th century Russia. It is clearly an anti-German propaganda film, released in 1939 just as Hitler's armies were wreaking havoc throughout Europe. Interestingly enough, the film was banned later that year after Stalin and Hitler signed the Non-Agression Pact, only to be re-released with the onset of war in 1941. For a 1930's film, 'Alexander Nevsky' is quite well made. Although at times it comes across as laughable, put in the context of the time it was made, it is quite impressive. Nevsky, played by Nikolai Cherkasov is a Russian Prince who rallies the people of Novogorad to oppose the invading Teutonic Knights. The film was clearly made to stir up both Russian patriotism and anti-German sentiment. The Germans are portrayed as evil conquerers, with daunting, eerie music invoked whenever they grace the screen. They also engage in heinous atrocities such as throwing children into fire pits! And of course the Russians are the patriotic heroes rallying around their Prince to defend Mother Russia. Nothing wrong with that, but let's call a spade a spade. Nevsky reminded me of a Russian version of Charleton Heston in 'The Ten Commandments.' I also agree that the score, done by distinguished composer Sergei Prokofiev, was excellent. All in all, an interesting film that was cinematically ahead of it's time.Alexander Nevsky
Xenophobia, and a desire to get in with Stalin
Alexander Nevsky has a huge and undeserved reputation as a film. As a film, it is a tour de force of editing and montage - the cinematography for the time is absolutely stunning, and is set among scenes that give the film its mythic properties. However, the score by Sergei Prokofiev wobbles from very good (nearly as compelling as the ballets) to laughable. It's the film's overwhelming political context that kills it, however.
Eisenstein made this film to please Stalin. As such, it is xenophobic, Rus in the extreme, and portrays the Russians as surrounded by hated and unredeemable enemies. This is the usual us-versus-them that justifies dictatorship. The speeches and posturing are all you would expect of government dominated art.
this review also submitted to netflixAlexander Nevsky
. . . He Faces Free Men Here
I just returned from a showing of this film to a live performance of the score by the Los Angeles Philharmonic. Of course, the musical performance was thrilling, but the film itself captivated me as well. I found the portrayal of early Russia through the Stalin-era perspective very interesting. The filmmaker's skill, especially in the battle sequences, is remarkable and produces quite an exciting film. I note the recurring theme shared with the movie 300 (sorry folks -- its there!) in defending one's home and way of life from conquering armies, and also the strategy of using the land itself as a weapon. I recommend the film as one of great interest for many reasons. Should you feel deprived of a good-quality performance of Prokofiev's score, there are many good recordings avaliable, including the St. Petersburg Philharmonic under Yuri Temirkanov (RCA Red Seal).Alexander Nevsky
|
