Alexander Nevsky (1938): A Review

ALEXANDER NEVSKY (1938)

Directed by : Sergei Eisenstein

Year of Release: 1938

movie poster

This is the second movie of Sergei Eisenstein that I have watched. The first one was Battleship Potemkin, released in 1925. I really enjoyed watching Potemkin, especially its complex camerawork in the Odessa steps sequence.. Understanding the limitations involved in filming these scenes especially in the Silent Film era, makes you really want to admire the spectacle that Battleship Potemkin is. As a Russian propagandist film promoting the cause of the socialist revolution among the workers against the tyranny of the monarchical state and army, this silent film was successfully able to convey those feelings of agitation, protest and solidarity. Potemkin is not just a gem among silent films, but is actually an enduring classic for all times. It is my personal opinion that silent films were never handicapped despite the absence of recorded sound and spoken dialogues. Contrarily, the silence did have a voice and that voice was heard through beautiful symbolism strewn throughout the cinematic landscape, focused acting (such as in the Passion of Joan of Arc) and innovative camerawork. I think Eisenstein's strength lay in manipulating the camera in such a way that each scene was exploding with action on a massive scale. His direction style uplifted the 'crowd' from a homogeneous blob of mass to one which had agency and was full of life and action. Despite not focusing on any one character, Eisenstein made you empathize with the struggles of each member of the community portrayed. Basically, the message endorsed in his film was that the struggle of the community is the struggle of each individual involved and one cannot exist without the another.

Alexander Nevsky can be seen in a similar light as Battleship Potemkin. Alexander Nevsky was a 13th century Russian warlord who successfully defended his territories from the invasion of the Swedes and the Teutonic Order of Germany. Clearly he was a figure worth emulating and immensely canonized in Russian nationalist literature. The Wikipedia article on Alexander Nevsky (the film) mentions that Eisenstein wanted to base Alexander on Stalin, the then Russian dictator. Whatever his intentions were, one can easily tell after watching the film that it is less historical drama and more of a propagandist one.

The titular character as portrayed by Russian actor Nikolai Cherkasov

Even though it is a sound film with spoken dialogues, I actually found the movie quite inferior to Battleship Potemkin. Even though it had all major elements of an Eisenstein film, it did not evoke the same kind of thrill that Potemkin did. In fact, the famous 'Battle of the Ice' sequence felt too long and drawn out. The battle scenes seemed too scattered and at times too comical and simplistic. Maybe its because I watched Potemkin first because of which it's specter hung over my head while I watched this movie. But I truly missed the angst and complexity portrayed in Potemkin. The reasons why I compare both films is simply because the message conveyed is technically the same, which is simply rousing the oppressed peasants/workers against an oppressive corrupt elite which is the nobility and the religious class of priests. However, in Alexander Nevsky, a leader is clearly portrayed who is constantly encouraging the community to stay strong and united against a common enemy. Interestingly, at the end of the film, the crowd does not actually target the knights or the soldiers but the symbols of religious orders who are considered as corrupt and as trouble makers who allow innocent children of the peasantry to be willingly massacred. The enemy is no particular person but rather the existing social order which needs to be purged of its corrupt elements and in order to achieve this, Nevsky becomes the perfect historical figure to be used in expressing current contemporary concerns of the Russian state.

The priests allowing children of the captured city of Pskov to be massacred 

The depiction of Alexander Nevsky is itself a very interesting for me. More than Stalin, I feel Eisenstein has depicted him as some military version of Jesus (I have no obvious idea what Eisenstein really wanted to depict through this portrayal and these are actually my own conclusions). According to the Christian traditions, the Jews expected the Messiah to be someone who would lead the Jews to victory against the Roman Empire but Jesus' mission turned out to be contrary to what was anticipated by the masses. In fact, Judas' betrayal was assumed to be because of disappointment with this new Messiah. In the film, first of all, the actor playing Alexander Nevsky is styled according to the basic portrayal of Christ. He also has loyal disciples like Vasili and Gavrilo whom he constantly discourages from acting as Judas Iscariot did. The opening scene has him fishing with the people, which not only depicts him as an ideal socialist leader, but also seems as a quaint biblical reference to Jesus' statement that "I shall make you fishers' of men". Throughout the film, he is depicted as an asexual and ideal male who is gathering the lost flock of peasantry towards him. In all these respects, he is similar to the traditional portrayal of Jesus. However, where he differs is that he a messianic figure who defends his land and people from all those who dare to attack. In fact, where Jesus failed, Nevsky succeeds and in turn establishes a new religious/socialist order. The attack on religious figures and symbols at the end is the depiction of  the end of not just an old and decaying social order but also the old idea of Christianity. Nevsky is the new messianic figure, and if Eisenstein intended Nevsky to stand for Stalin, what we really get is an indirect Messianic portrayal of Stalin who is ready to lead his people to not just a new state but in fact to a new religious order, which is probably a cult of personality centered around Stalin. In contrast, I found Zemlya, released in 1930 and directed by Alexander Dovzhenko, similar in its critique of Christianity but less obsessed with the Messianic aspect. The ending of Zemlya depicts an outright rejection of the religious symbols and authorities. In fact, this film chooses to go back to its Slavic roots of fertility worship and paganism. Whereas Zemlya chooses to use its non-Christian past to depict the socialism as a new religious order, Alexander Nevsky in fact twists the Christian/Jewish version of the Messianic beliefs to give a certain legitimacy to the new socialist order.

A scene from the movie Zemlya

Overall, the movie was entertaining enough. The war scenes were a bit too long but it still managed to keep you engaged. The side love story seemed pretty useless to me and too wishy-washy. I did enjoy watching the costume designs in this movie especially the decorative headgear of the Knights of Teutonic Order as well as those of the Catholic priests. It's a simple enough film with very clear objectives it wants to portray and it gives the audience exactly the kind of action scenes and emotions that are desired.

With Potemkin, Eisenstein set a huge bar that would probably matched by few. Though Alexander Nevsky does not come close in matching those standards, I still feel in its use of cultural figures and religious imagery, it is special in its own way.

The Exorcist: A Review of both the movie and the book

Currently I am on a break from writing my dissertation. So yesterday, I decided to treat myself to a back to back film binge-watch. What I ended up with was three very diverse film which were: The Exorcist (1973), Alexander Nevsky(1938) and Aladdin (1992). On this blog, I just want to discuss my feelings on each of these films. I admit to the fact that I am not an expert on film theory nor film-making, and that I am simply writing from the perspective of a simple person who enjoys watching them immensely.

THE EXORCIST (1973)

Ok, first things first, how cool is that movie poster !!

That man ( who is actually Father Lankester Merrin and basically is the titular character of the movie and the book ) standing at the edge of the mansion's entrance while the light from the window from the top left of the poster reflects his arrival. It's almost like a stage is being prepared for a legendary face off and though The Exorcist also depicts the age old struggle between good and evil, I feel that the poster tends to invert those struggles. Father Merrin, the exorcist is a shadowy black figure whose posture tells us that he is at the cusp of something momentous. With the formal attire, the hat and the bag combo, he is eerily like the modern day depictions of the Grim Reaper, He is mysterious and his intentions , according to a viewer, are ambiguous in this poster. In contrast is the bright and almost pure light emanating from the window, In fact, the radiance of that light manages to illuminate everything but the exorcist. In a way, we could interpret that this light is welcoming its challenger in the most disarming manner. Without the famous visuals of Linda Blair's portrayal of a possessed girl, the poster is actually a confusing one. It makes you wonder about whose side you want to take in this movie, the shadowy figure or the bright beckoning light above.

Another point of note: William Peter Blatty is a terrific writer and when he mentions this scene in the book, it's equally breathtaking. And to be honest, the poster remains true to the portrayal in the book and frankly it becomes one of those rare moments where reality is just as one imagined it to be. In fact, since the movie so very faithful  to the novel ( obviously since Blatty the author was also the one who wrote the screenplay of the movie ), some of the best scenes in the book are beautifully realized in the movie too, and maybe that is why this film remains still memorable because it was really able to capture the author's vision.

I don't want sound monotonous, but in all honesty, the book was a more satisfying experience in comparison to the film. The book was catchy, thrilling in all the right places and had a very smart understanding about what the audience would enjoy (which is something Blatty and Friedkin did manage to bring into the movie too). Overall for me, the book was like reading those old spy novels where the focus was more on the process of investigation then on the whodunits, with a good dose of supernatural added to it. In fact, this book reminded me highly of Stoker's Dracula. Leaving aside deep literary questions about the book's writings and intentions, Dracula is actually a fun past-time read. It has all the elements of a fantastic escapist fantasy with its one-dimensional evil monsters and its band of do-gooders who finally face-off in an epic struggle between good and evil. You could never put Shelley's Frankenstein and Stoker's Dracula in the same category, but you definitely can do that with The Exorcist and Dracula. Both have in fact, a somewhat similar premise. In both cases, the monsters are technically foreigners, Dracula from Transylvania and the demon Pazuzu from Iraq. They both take over or end up manipulating female 'virgin' victims, Mina and Lucy in Dracula and Reagan in the Exorcist. Both demons are dispelled by the power of Christian devotion and rituals performed by male medical and religious authorities. In the case of Dracula, it is Dr. Abraham Van Helsing who is both a doctor/monster hunter and in the case of the Exorcist, Father Damien Karras who is a renowned psychologist and Father Lankester, the exorcist/ archaeologist/ doctor. And finally, what holds all these elements together is the saving or the  unrelenting power of love, specifically expressed through Mina's fiance Jonathan Parker and Reagen' s mother, Chris MacNeil. A clever thing that I credit both to Blatty and Stoker is their reworking of the Gothic genre by borrowing heavily from Christian mythology and from its fringe practices. There are always stories, belief, rituals and magic that remain on the fringes of mainstream Christian beliefs but also exist alongside them as localized cultural tropes and symbols. They are never truly explored in religious teaching to the masses but at the same time their existence validates the importance and 'goodness' of the religion, just like gargoyles or demon masks guarding the outside of religious structure. Their presence invokes a sense of fear, of the unknown but also a sense of guardianship. Blatty cleverly delves into our interest in these peripheral and almost paganic ritualistic practices such as demon possession, exorcism, Satanic cults and the Black Mass rituals. He exploits your curiosity and towards the end, you are equally invested in the book not just for it obvious supernatural elements but also how these elements are rationalized into the modern day thinking and how its protagonists (including the ever conflicted Father Karras - an excellently created character besides Chris, the mother who is also an atheist) grapple to come to terms with matters completely alien to their contemporary mindset.

In contrast to the book, I found the movie a tad bit disappointing. It has a slow pace and some of the most memorable scenes as well as most of the action happen only towards the last 45 minutes. But in order to stay true to the book, the movie in presentation of the plot and its characters, becomes almost mechanical. Characters come and go abruptly. They seem to be introduced simply out of obligation to the book. Burke Denning's murder is never shown but only hinted at, which is kind of disappointing. Even the investigation by Lieutenant Kinderman, which was clearly portrayed in the book, is sidelined and just becomes another obligatory addition to the plot. I understand that you cannot add everything from the book and you need to be editing your scenes accordingly but the problem with the film is quite the opposite. The editing is in fact, too tight. Crucial scenes are cut off and the plot becomes almost one note. If it were not for Ellen Burstyn's distraught mother act in each scene of the film and Linda Blair's possessed daughter act, this film would have been quite forgettable. And minimalist dialogues do not help the movie at all. I was not very impressed with Miller's portrayal of Karras either. He made Karras too maudlin and frankly too wimpy. If only I could go back in time, I would have forced Friedkin to recast that character. Jack Nicholsan, who was the original choice, would have done troubled Father Karras justice. Father Merrin is not very developed in the book, so I do think the portrayal in the movie was just fine. If anything, the movie fleshes out his character much more nicely.

Father Merrin and Father Karras in Reagan's room trying to perform exorcism on her.

The best part of the movie is obviously Linda Blair's portrayal of a young girl possessed by the demon Pazuzu.  Credit is also due to William Friedkin's directions in portraying the horror scenes and Dick Smith's special make up effect which give a chilling and convinced depiction of true horror. Everything is in sync here and truly more than being scared, you are horrified and deeply saddened by what is happening to the poor little girl. The head turning scene was really cool. You could not tell that was actually a dummy!!... I think the only scene that truly horrified me was when the Demon violently forces Reagen to insert the crucifix into her vagina repeatedly, leading to massive bleeding. That scene was very difficult to watch.

You really can't tell it is a puppet!!

Finally, I think it is only in the ending scenes that the movie triumphs over the book. The death of Father Merrin and the eventual possession of Father Karras and the sacrifice of his life in order to defeat Pazuzu, are really intriguing (unlike in Dracula where all the main characters are still alive and intact). The book depicts these scenes from only a third person perspective who is more like an outside spectator so what you get is a very detached ending to a very spectacular affair. In the movie, the perspective is shifted directly to Karras and we see him get possessed and then committing suicide by jumping from the window. You see his angst, his troubles and finally his resolve towards his faith in these last few seconds and suddenly you feel the burden that he had decided to carry in order to save an innocent girl. Frankly its a mesmerizing scene and only scene where I can truly appreciate Miller's acting. Thankfully, the film ends on happy but an abrupt note unlike most films in the horror genre. There have been sequels to this film but I personally would like to consider it a stand-alone feature though I do look forward to reading Blatty's sequel to the Exorcist which is titled Legion.

Pazuzu possesses Father Karras

Overall, the film was entertaining but a little too robotic in its execution. The best things about the film are the fact that it chose to have Blatty as its screenplay writer who in turn was clever enough to bring to life the most exciting and visually thrilling scenes in the book. The acting and the special effects fully complemented the intentions of the plot and gave it life despite the many plot holes and cardboard characters. I admit despite my many misgiving before watching this film, I was actually not scared when I finally watched it. Surprise, surprise...

I feel like I should I come back to this old forgotten blog of mine that I started in 2010. I can't believe that it has been five years since. I like to flatter myself in thinking that the version of me in 2015 is quite a different version of what I was in 2010. However, when I read my earlier posts, I still think that a part of me or at the very least that bit of me that always wants to learn and experience new things has remained the same.

One reason I never continued with the blog, other than the fact that I was highly irregular, was because I felt highly conscious about my writing abilities. It's feels highly intimidating when various people are going through what you have written and are evaluating your thoughts, your grammar and your vocabulary. In a way, it makes you feels so exposed and you hate yourself for being so cowardly. Its so much more easier to share a well-written article by someone else to gain acknowledgement about your intellectual standing than to be able to put those same thoughts in writing by yourself. I hope keeping a blog will help me get over my intimidation and help me in not just improving as a writer but also as a constantly learning intellectual with more articulate thoughts on different matters. Cheers!!