Talk:Ivan the Terrible (1945 film)

Sources SOURCES!

We need sources for claims of Stalin's admiration for Ivan etc. Where is it?

-G

Added Images

Ipaat, I reverted your changes where you added images. There isn't enough text to put that many images, and there was one that completely messed up the text. I don't know anything about the movie so I can't enlarge the article. --Dandin1 23:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Image

In the film Princess Staritskaya was played by Serafima Birman, not Ranevskaya. I believe it is a photo from a test. Mapple 19:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I fixed that in the caption. The image description page itself states that the picture is from a screen test. - Bobet 15:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Legend, myth etc.

Over this past summer, I had several lectures on Ivan the Terrible films. In this, Professor Robert "Bob" Efird of Virginia Tech mentioned (at least three times) that Sergei Eisenstein died minutes, heartbroken after being told on the phone that Ivan the Terrible Part 2 (his magna opus) wouldn't be released.

This was due to the implications Part 2 made about Stalin (i.e. that Ivan, symbolizing Stalin in the films, goes crazy, and starts killing innocent Russians through his secret bodyguard (Ivan's oprichniki parallels Stalin's secret police/KGB etc etc).

Eisenstein understood this, and so at the end of Part 2 made Ivan and various members of his Oprichniki salute the camera in the name of communism as Eisenstein's attempt to pacify Stalin.

In short, Stalin having personally reviewed the film concluded (correctly) that he would be portrayed negatively, and so refused its distribution in the Soviet Union, and ordered the destruction of what was completed of the end of Ivan the Terrible, Part Three (80% was destroyed, approxiamte 16 minutes of the 20 minutes was burned to ash). Thus one of the greatest films ever made was prematurely finished, with no real ending.

Also, perhaps it's worth mentioning the fact in the article that in Russian history no greater parallel exists then that between Ivan the Terrible and Stalin. It would give greater meaning to the film.

Has anyone else heard this before? Can it be added? Any thoughts are appreciated.

Zidel333 07:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually the notions/symbols which are against rulers like Stalin are even present in the "government's cut" version of the Part I. One can understand the roots of the madness and tyranny even better if he/she can have a chance to watch the "director's cut" of the film which was censored for a while. Still people criticize Eisenstein as being a tool for the Soviet government but they have to keep one thing in mind; Ivan the Terrible was in fact a successful leader who in a way united the Russian feudal system during the first phase of his reign. Therefore it is also natural to see a wild ruler in Part II, in line with the facts of history. It was banned, luckily now we can see it whenever we want, but nobody could accept Part III which would depict a man who trips around the zenith of madness. You can see it in the very short footage left from the film. The director actually survived the Part II tragedy, as the film had been ready since 1946 so he probably understood that the government won't give way to it, but died during shooting Part III. It is a sad example to the idea that revolution kills his own children. Deliogul (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Film Study Notes?

I want to add a section on why this film is considered a 20th Century classic, mostly on Eisenstein’s stylistic interpretations (all the major characters are portrayed as animals), the dramatic use of shadowing, the frequent symbols echoed again and again (the single eye for instance), the dance scene with homosexual overtones in the 2nd part etc. etc.

Also, maybe a section on how the film deviates from the actual history is in order.

Any thought? Anyone willing to collaborate? I need to purchase this online and watch it in it's entirety before I want to add this though.

Zidel333 05:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

For many years I believed that the film's downfall was due to the perceived parallel with Stalin's figure. After twice watching the whole film in 2005, I can surely say that Eisenstein's masterpiece transforms itself into a complete gay Broadway show by the end of the second part (not just in the dance scene). I suspect that in the politicized atmosphere of Soviet cinema it was more approapriate to talk about film's demise as being due to politics. Eisenstein's films are all full of his homosexuality, but it was often lost on the general public, who, I think, might have confused it with over-dramatization so characteristic of the Soviet theater at the time. The film is really quite a gay propaganda piece, that can hardly be taken seriously as a truthful presentation of Russian History or even as a parallel to Stalin's rule. I suspect that Eisenstein was more homosexual than "political". While Stalin was getting "propaganda" reels from Eisenstein, the filmmaker was getting his own "agenda" through. If he did indeed die minutes after Stalin's condemnation of the film, it was not because he lamented the end of his great "portrayal" of USSR under Stalin - it was because he regretted the silencing of that very dance scene. Anchorite 06:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That's seems a little POV to me Anchorite. ;-) I honestly think the dance scene isn't "Broadway" as you put it, over the top to be sure, but certainly cutting edge considering eh time and circumstance. Gay Propaganda? Far from it, the only major section of the movie was the dance scene at the end of Part Two. To be honest, Eisenstein is considered by many to have been bisexual, and so it isn't "gay" per se. The gender reversal of Mistress of the Boyars, Princess Staritskaya, and her effeminate son the Prince Vladimir Andreyevich Staritsky, is much more pertinent then the dance scene, and thus isn't "gay propaganda". Its more about genders and one's sexuality, then the more constricted topic of "gay".

As for Eisenstein's death, this is quite open to interpretation, and speculation, as I indicated in my previous addition to the Talk page. I think it worthy of adding to the article, and certainly, other views are welcome, but I see no citation to your idea.

Finally for historical accuracy, any one who knows a whit about Russian history will know that this is a historical epic with great artistic license. To be honest it goes without saying if you see it, and to be frank how sure can we be of these events that occurred nearly 500 years ago? Precisely, why I want to add the historical inaccuracy section.

Do not take me wrong, you seem very smart. :D

Zidel333 22:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I myself saw more campiness in both parts than any of the alleged "terribleness" of Ivan and, in turn, Stalin. From the first minutes of dialogue of part I, the campy overacting reminded me greatly of Fassbinder's gay cinema, which I hear was based on Douglas Sirk's campy kitsch films. --87.180.197.207 (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Willy Wonka

I couldn't help but notice the musical similarities between the monk's chorus during the banquet scene in part II and the Oompa Loompa's song "Oompa Loompa Doompa-De-Do" in Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory. Listen to the rythm and tone when the chorus sings "come along! come along! What happens next? What happens next?" and see what you think. It's a very close match. Anyone else notice this? Rklawton 19:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Production

Some information on the film's production would be nice.--Paleface Jack (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The current article claims it was all shot in Alma-Ata, but I recall reading now and then that some parts of Pt 2 were indeed shot in Moscow, which had become safe for movie work by 1944/45. Some of Pt 3 was projected to be shot in the Baltic provinces (Estonia, etc) which had been taken over by the end of the war; those episodes would deal with Ivan's wars with the Swedes in Estonia and Ingria (and near present-day St.Petersburg). Strausszek (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Release Date

Can we get a citation on the release date? According to imdb, it wasn't released until January 20, 1945. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.86.156 (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

"Was released in 1958 and banned on the order of Stalin."

Stalin was five years dead in 1958, so this makes no sense. 2001:569:7BB7:D200:F9CD:9B2A:442A:9AB0 (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Lacking reference

Wheres the evidence for that? "Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin, who admired and identified with Ivan." --2A02:8389:2181:A400:D847:6B00:40BC:8CC3 (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Part III

There is a short clip available (and some stills) - what would the best link be? Jackiespeel (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ivan the Terrible (1945 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Jaguarnik (talk · contribs) 16:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pagliaccious (talk · contribs) 16:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello Jaguarnik, I will be reviewing the article. I'll try to be responsive enough to finish things before September, since I'll also be busy, but this is my first GAR and you've nominated a pretty thorough article. Pagliaccious (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review; looking forward to the review. Jaguarnik (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Jaguarnik: I've finished with most things besides the ref checks. Overall, the article is well written, I just have a few notes below. Lots of great hooks if you take this to DYK! My favorite is Eisenstein tasked the makeup artist, Vasily Goriunov, with making Ivan resemble at different points of the film Nebuchadnezzar, Judas, Uriel Acosta, Mephistopheles, and Jesus Christ. Also interesting to me is that Eisenstein wrote that the relationship between Ivan and Vladimir mirrors the one between Rogozhin and Prince Myshkin and Ivan in the scene of his near-death resembles Hans Holbein's Dead Christ. I believe that this is the painting which Rogozhin shows Myshkin. Kind regards, Pagliaccious (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Will definitely consider these hooks.Jaguarnik (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   Overall, very well written. There's just a few things I'd like to nitpick.

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Looks good to me. I copyedited a few minor things.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   I would do a read through the article and see where more links could be added (avoiding overlinking), and see where links could be moved to their first occurrence. Some examples: boyars is not linked until its second mention in the plot summary despite being in the lede; Livonian ambassador is not linked but a later mention of Livonia is; holy fool is mentioned four times without a link to Foolishness for Christ; Metropolitan of Moscow is linked at its second occurrence in the plot summary.

   I've linked Livonians and boyars to their first occurence, linked Foolishness for Christ to the mention of holy fool, linked tsarina's family to House of Romanov, linked Dmitri to his wikipedia article. I'm not sure whether to link the first mention of Fyodor Kolychov to Philip II, Metropolitan of Moscow or just leave it as linked to the first mention of Kolychov's monastic name. I don't see where Metropolitan of Moscow is referenced before part II, but it's possible that the first mention was removed while I was editing the plot summary. I'll take a second look later to see if I haven't missed anything.

   Looks good to me

   For the plot section, I tried to refer to WP:PLOTSUM and a few example GAs like Citizen Kane and Solaris (1972 film). At about 1350 words it's well over the 400-700 word guidance from WP:PLOTSUM; while that's probably allowable for a two-parter, I still think that the plot summary could use some trimming. I don't think that there's an exact word count to aim for, and I think that over 700 is fine here, but a lot could be done. For example, the phrase sowing the seeds of doubt into his heart is excessive. As an example of trimming, you could reduce something like:

   In the cathedral, the assassin stabs the mock tsar and is immediately seized by Fyodor and Malyuta. Yefrosinya arrives, jubilant at the apparent death of Ivan, until she sees him alive; she realizes that Vladimir has been killed. Ivan orders the two to release the assassin, and thanks him for killing not only "a fool", but "the tsar's worst enemy". He leaves Yefrosinya, who has gone insane over her son's death, in the cathedral

   to something more concise like In the cathedral, the assassin stabs the mock tsar and is seized. Yefrosinya arrives, celebrating the death of Ivan. After she sees him alive, she realizes that Vladimir has been killed and goes insane. Ivan orders the two to release the assassin, and thanks him for killing not only "a fool", but "the tsar's worst enemy".

   Another minor detail is the italicization of oprichnina and oprichniki. From MOS:NONENGITALIC it seems that both should be italicized, which the article does for the most part, but there are several instances where this is missed.

   I've gone through and italicized mentions of oprichnina and oprichniki; I'll address the other issues shortly.Jaguarnik (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

   I've tried to cut down the summary as much as possible; I will look at it later and see if I can't cut it down more to essential details while keeping the summary clear. It may be difficult to have the full summary be just 700 words, since so much happens in this film. Will work on the linking next.Jaguarnik (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

   I mentioned it in an amendment above, but definitely don't worry about getting down to 700 words, or even any specific word-count. It's not really an issue of essential details but of inessential details. For example, and send him a ceremonial knife with the suggestion that he do himself a favor by using it to commit suicide isn't as essential as the plot-important fact that Ivan calms the crowd, but is interrupted by envoys from the khanate of Kazan, who announce that Kazan has declared war against Muscovy. You're right that a lot happens in the film, so again don't worry about that 700 mark. Maybe look for 1000-1100 if you really need a threshold. Pagliaccious (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

   I've managed to get it down to 1098 words, please let me know if there's any further issues with the plot summary + length. Will work on addressing the links + other issues. Jaguarnik (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

   I think it's much more concise now. I'm good to pass this part of the review.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   I haven't gone through the entire article yet, but one thing I noticed while reading through for the well-written criterion: After he evacuated to Alma-Ata, Eisenstein offered him the role. What was Kuznetsov evacuated from? I took a look at the Yurenev (1974) source referenced, but I didn't see it explained, just mentioned that he evacuated. It's an interesting detail.

   I believe Kuznetsov at the time was based in Moscow (as he was filming for Mosfilm) and most of the actors based in Moscow/working for Mosfilm were evacuated to Alma-Ata according to Neuberger, but I'm not quite sure where specifically Kuznetsov was at the time of evacuation. Does this need rewording? Jaguarnik (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

   Either rewording (Eisenstein offered him the role when the two met in Alma-Ata, for example) or just an explanation of from where/why the actors were evacuated. It seems like a noteworthy inclusion, and would also need explanation when you mention Eisenstein's evacuation earlier in the article.

   I've added a brief context in pre-production that actors working for Mosfilm were evacuated to Alma-Ata, and added in "casting" that Kuznetsov also evacuated to Alma-Ata; please review it and let me know if there's any issues with the wording + additional issues here.Jaguarnik (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

   Looks perfect Pagliaccious (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

   I'll go through every eighth reference (about 15 total) to spot check. I'll finish later tonight.

   • Edited by Sergei Eisenstein, Esfir Tobak: Tobak 1998.

   Y Looks good, I just added a page number to the sfn.

   • Eisenstein began research on the film in early 1941. Among his sources were Heinrich von Staden's and Andrei Kurbsky's writings about their lives in Ivan's court and his reign, and Ivan's correspondence with Kurbsky. Additionally, Eisenstein read the biography of Ivan by Robert Wipper and the writings of historians Sergei Solovyov, Vasily Klyuchevsky, Alexander Pypin, and Igor Grabar: Neuberger 2014, p. 301.

   Y Great summary

   • Production on the film was delayed to April 1943: Neuberger 2014, p. 303.

   Y Looks good. I changed this to Production on the film was delayed due to the ongoing invasion of the USSR until April 1943 for context, still mentioned in the source.

   • For the portrayal of 17-year-old Ivan, makeup artist Vasily Goriunov used adhesive to glue back the flesh on Cherkasov's face. This also had the effect of limiting Cherkasov's ability to move his face. The actor disliked this solution, saying that the makeup made him look not like a 17-year-old, but like a fetus: Oeler 2018, p. 50.

   (Looking for a copy)

   I should clarify that Cherkasov's comment on looking like a fetus comes from Yurenev, not Oeler. Oeler states that Particularly in the coronation scene, where Cherkasov’s Ivan is at his youngest, the makeup, while it helped create the “outer form,” impeded the actor’s ability to move his face. Goriunov used adhesive to pull back the looser, more creased flesh of middle age, transforming the forty-year-old actor into a smooth-cheeked teen. If you have access to Wikipedia library, you can access a free copy on De Gruyter.

   Ah okay. I'll take a look at the second use of the Oeler page then: Filming was done at night, since electricity was limited during the day. Y Checks out.

   • Eisenstein wanted Vsevolod Pudovkin to play Pimen, but Pudovkin was filming In the Name of the Fatherland and was unavailable at the time; then he suffered a heart attack and could not accept the role. He ultimately played the holy fool Nikola. Mgrebov was then considered for the role of Pimen. Unknown to Eisenstein, he was seriously ill with tuberculosis. When Eisenstein learned about Mgrebov's illness, he organized the treatment of Mgrebov. Mgrebov later stated that Eisenstein's intervention saved his life. Both Neuberger 2019, p. 54 and Yurenev 1974, pp. 329–330.

   N Everything checks out except the following: Pudovkin was filming In the Name of the Fatherland and was unavailable at the time. It seems that the second source just covers Mgrebov and I didn't see Pudovkin in the index. In the first source, a search for In the Name of the Fatherland turns up no results in the text. The times seem to line up for him to be unavailable, I just don't see this in either source. Is this corroborated by another source, or am I missing something?

   The confusion here is that Yurenev writes (with testimony from Goriunov) that Pudovkin was filming Русские люди (Например, он очень хотел, чтобы Пимена играл Пудовкин. Но тот как раз заканчивал «Русские люди» и сниматься не мог.), which is alternatively known as "In The Name of the Fatherland" (English wiki doesn't mention this, but Russian Wiki does). I failed to include that this was written on page 375, not 329-330 (329-330 is about Mgrebov) so that's my mistake. Neuberger doesn't seem to include this in her book, so if this counts as WP:SYNTH then I can remove that.

   Y Ahh okay. I don't think there are any WP:SYNTH issues. Eisenstein wanted Vsevolod Pudovkin to play Pimen, but Pudovkin was filming In the Name of the Fatherland and was unavailable at the time is a paraphrase of the quote you gave above. If your worry is about the Русские люди <-> Во имя Родины connection, the existence of an alternative name is a factual, easily verifiable thing. If you do want a source to add, something like the Mosfilm website seems good to cite, but I think it's fine to leave it.

   • For their work on Part I, Eisenstein, Cherkasov, Prokofiev, Moskvin, and Tisse were each awarded a Stalin Prize in 1946. Both Platt et al. 1999, p. 640 and Taylor 2004, p. 39.

   Y Checks out. Almost missed this in the footnote!

   • Eisenstein and Cherkasov met with Stalin in 1947 to discuss modifications to the film in order to lift the ban: Neuberger 2019, p. 331.

   Y Looks good. I went ahead and extended this to pp. 330–331, since the year (1947) is mentioned on 330 and the motivation for the meeting on 331.

   • The plot of Part III was to include Ivan's growing paranoia of his followers, his execution of the Basmanovs, and a battle against Livonian troops which Ivan wins, thus gains access to the sea for his people at the cost of Malyuta's life. Eisenstein, Sergei (1962). Ivan the Terrible: A Screenplay by Sergei M. Eisenstein. Trans. by Ivor Montagu & Herbert Marshall. Simon and Schuster; 1st US edition. ASIN B000HB7OVK.

   Y Looks good. It's interesting that this original screenplay had Part III included in Part II, but was separated later, as the introduction describes. Maybe this could fit into the article. I wanted this to match the other sfn's, so I moved the ref into the Bibliography.

   • While the first part is generally viewed as a Stalinist depiction of Ivan IV, critics such as Naum Kleiman and Dwight Macdonald viewed Part II as a serious critique of Stalinism. From Neuberger 2014, pp. 298-299, Thompson 1977, p. 30, and Platt 2007, pp. 294–295.

   Y Good for the most part, but I would consider removing that third reference. Platt does not consider it a "serious critique of Stalinism"; in fact, he says I hope that my own reading may redirect discussion from the dead end of "proving" the films' critique of Stalinism to what I believe is a more fertile and certain discussion of it as a critique of Stalinist historical revisionism. Nor does he mention Kleiman or Dwight Macdonald by name.

   Fair. Platt wasn't intended to support Kleiman or MacDonald but rather the statement that the film has been interpreted as critiquing Stalinism ("Much of the critical discussion of Ivan the Terrible has worked to elevate Eisenstein, on the basis of the banned second installment in the project in particular, as an example of willful subversion or noble resistance to the tyranny of Stalinism"). I'll remove it anyway, because I think the necessary information is covered in the other two sources, and the Platt source is a bit too niche to be useful otherwise.

   • The Orthodox Church in Ivan the Terrible is depicted as a power that supports tradition and the interest of the boyars. Seton 1960, p. 430.

   Y Checks out

   • According to Viktor Shklovsky, Eisenstein took inspiration from the works of Victor Hugo when writing the death of Vladimir Staritsky. Specifically, Vladimir's death most closely resembles the ending of Rigoletto, based on Hugo's Le roi s'amuse: the court jester wishes to kill the king, but by accident kills his own child, who is dressed as the king. Shklovsky 1976, p. 252.

   Y Looks good.

   • In his notes for the film, Eisenstein describes Fyodor's role in the film as the replacement of Anastasia, or an ersatz version of Anastasia; in the view of both Gillespie and Usuvaliev, Fyodor specifically replaces Anastasia as Ivan's "partner". From Shklovsky 1976, p. 252, Gillespie 2008, p. 23, and Usuvaliev 2014, p. 194.

   Y Checks out. Could probably move the Shklovsky reference up to the semicolon, since that's the reference which mentions "ersatz".

   Done.

   • Pimen, the antagonistic Metropolitan, is initially dressed all in white, to symbolize death. In Eisenstein's sketches, Pimen is given a skull-like quality, and one scene had him standing opposite of a fresco of the white horseman of Death. Tsivian 2001, pp. 257–259.

   Y Looks good, but the phrase "a skull-like quality" is a pretty specific phrase from the text, and might violate WP:NOCREATIVE. I would use a different phrase. Try something like "Pimen's head resembles a skull", or "Pimen is given a skeletal face" instead.

   Done.

   • In contrast, Crowther harshly criticized Part II, calling it a "pale extension" of part I. Crowther 1959.

   Y The quote matches.

   • Directors Akira Kurosawa, Éric Rohmer, and Slava Tsukerman named Ivan the Terrible as among their favorite films. Thomas-Mason 2023, Tsukerman 2019, and BFI 2015.

   Y Looks good. I just swapped the order of the refs in the article to match the order of the directors in the sentences.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Passes, see spot-check above.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Looks good using the Earwig CopyVio tool. I'll cover this more in the spot-check under part 2A.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Looks good overall, but it seems to me that a major detail is left out of the body. In the lead, it is written that it was banned on the order of Stalin, who intensely disliked its depiction of Ivan. In the Screenings and release section, this is left unmentioned besides that Stalin was unhappy with Ivan's portrayal in the second part. If the banning of the film is important enough to mention in the lead, it should certainly be mentioned in greater detail in this section.

   I'll review what the sources say to see if I can't add more detail; as far as I remember it was screened before the committee which disliked it, then Stalin watched it, disliked it, banned it, and met with Eisenstein + Cherkasov to explain what was wrong with the film.

   So I've modified the lead after looking at the source again and added details on the banning. If there's any more issues here, please let me know.Jaguarnik (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

   Looks perfect.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Looks good to me, but I might ask for a second opinion since there's a wealth of detail and I don't have much experience distinguishing between overly detailed articles and extremely notable, detailed articles. On the subject, is there a reason this detail is commented out at the bottom of the Allusions section?

   Eisenstein admired Walt Disney's films, being inspired in particular by Snow White and The Sorcerer's Apprentice, and encouraged his actors for the kind of "plasticity" that Disney's animated characters had.

   I had planned to add that detail in, but wasn't sure if it was necessary to add, so I commented it out and forgot about it. I might remove it entirely, since I'm not sure that it merits mentioning in the article. Jaguarnik (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

   That makes sense. I think that if it's not immediately related to Ivan the Terrible, the Allusions section can probably go without this detail.

   Removed.

   Great. I'm not too worried about unnecessary detail like I alluded to earlier. This looks on par with Featured Articles like Jaws (film) or Tenebrae (film), so I'm passing this section of the review.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   @Jaguarnik: Everything looks ready to pass except for the one reference I mentioned above and a few minor tweaks. I'd like to take one more look through the article tomorrow with a fresh pair of eyes; after that, once everything's in order with the reference, I'll likely ready to mark as Passed.

   Sounds great. I really appreciate your thorough and thoughtful review.Jaguarnik (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

   Hello Jaguarnik. I've done a last read-through and I'm ready to pass the article, except for one note about the structure of the Production section. It seems to me that it would make more sense to put the Casting subsection before the Production of the film subsection to keep things more chronological, since casting began in 1942 and "Production" in 1943. On that note, is there a reason that there is a Production of the film subsection of the Production section? It seems a little redundant to me. I'd like to rename this section to just "Filming", but this doesn't encapsulate the information you've included in the Production of the film subsection. Also, should the Screenings and release section be included as part of the Production section, if the film has to be produced in order to screen?

   I think that this would be mostly resolved by renaming the Production section to something more general. Can you think of something else to call the Production section, or a way to rename/restructure some of the subsections? Pagliaccious (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

   Agree about casting, I'll move that to before Production. I could make "Screenings and release" its own section, not part of "Production". From looking at articles like Jaws, I think the best way is to rename "pre-production" to "development" and move parts like the paragraph about Prokofiev's involvement to "development".

   Looks good. You've done a really great job condensing so much information on the film into a concise and compelling article. I'm happy to give it a ✓ Pass on the review. Let me know if you ever want to take this to FA in the future—I'd be glad to do an even more thorough peer review on the prose and read through the whole of the referenced works. Pagliaccious (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

   Thank you so much!

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 19:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Sergei Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible (screenshot pictured) has been named both one of the worst and one of the greatest films of all time?

• Source: Worst: Medved, Harry; Dreyfuss, Randy (1978). The fifty worst films of all time: and how they got that way. https://archive.org/details/fiftyworstfilmso0000medv/page/112/mode/2up?q=eisenstein, pp 113-116. Best: Sight and Sound, 1962, https://archive.org/details/Sight_and_Sound_1962_01_BFI_GB/page/n15/mode/2up?view=theater

• ALT1: ... that the second part of Ivan the Terrible was banned one month after the first part was awarded a Stalin Prize? Source: Neuberger, Joan (2019). This Thing of Darkness: Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible in Soviet Russia. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. doi:10.7591/9781501732775. ISBN 9781501732775. pg 305. Quote: "Understanding the reception of Ivan the Terrible has been further complicated by the fact that Part I received the Stalin Prize a year after it was completed, and a month later Part II was banned by the Central Committee." Accessed through De Gruyter.
• ALT2: ... that the makeup artist for the film Ivan the Terrible was tasked with making Ivan resemble Nebuchadnezzar, Judas Iscariot, Uriel Acosta, Mephistopheles, and Jesus Christ throughout the film? Source: Tsivian, Yuri (2001). "What is wrong with the beard : Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible as an eccentric tragedy" (PDF). Cinémas. 11 (2–3): 255–270. doi:10.7202/024855ar. ISSN 1705-6500. pgs 262-263. Quote: "Recall Ivan's make-up. In Non-Indifferent Nature Eisenstein describes the formidable task he had given the make-up artist Vasilii Goriunov: to make of Cherkasov's face a kaleidoscope of fleeting resemblances without ever letting the viewer pin down any of them — from the biblical villain Nebuchadnezzar to the righteous Jew, Uriel Acosta (of the eponymous tragedy by Karl Gutzkov), from (Leonardo's?) Judas and the conventional stage-Mephistopheles to the Jesus Christ of Christian iconography."
• ALT3: ... that the costume designer for the film Ivan the Terrible sewed cotton "muscles" for the actors in order to hide their malnutrition? Source: Usuvaliev, Sultan (2 September 2014). "The godfathers of Mikhail Kuznetsov". Studies in Russian and Soviet Cinema. 8 (3): 184–199. pg 188-189. Quote: "This was exacerbated not just by the complexity of the concept but by their half-starved existence. ‘Sometimes,’ Kuznetsov recalled, ‘you simply didn’t have enough muscle – not to move, but to look as you had to. And the celebrated Iakov Il'ich Raizman, the outstanding artist-tailor, sewed these muscles for us out of cotton wool – we were all fat…’" Accessed through Taylor and Francis Online.
• ALT4: ... that director Sergei Eisenstein filled over a hundred notebooks with ideas for his film Ivan the Terrible? Source: Neuberger, Joan (2014). "Sergei Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible as History". The Journal of Modern History. 86 (2): 295–334. doi:10.1086/675483. ISSN 0022-2801. JSTOR 10.1086/675483. S2CID 147797492. pg 297. Quote: "While making Ivan the Terrible, he filled more than one hundred notebooks with ideas on everything from staging and acting to music and lighting to character and history. They contain various kinds of entries: reading notes, long passages in response to reading, records of conversations, slips of paper with marginalia, and personal reflections on events, as well as drawings." Accessed through JSTOR.
• ALT5: ... that for his role in Ivan the Terrible, actor Nikolay Cherkasov had the flesh on his face glued back to give the appearance of a younger man? Source: Oeler, Karla (2018). "Nikolai Cherkasov in Ivan the Terrible". In Pomerance, Murray; Steven, Kyle (eds.). Close-Up: Great Cinematic Performances. International Film Stars. Vol. 2. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 9781474417044. pg 50. Quote: ""Particularly in the coronation scene, where Cherkasov’s Ivan is at his youngest, the makeup, while it helped create the “outer form,” impeded the actor’s ability to move his face. Goriunov used adhesive to pull back the looser, more creased flesh of middle age, transforming the forty-year-old actor into a smooth-cheeked teen." Accessed through De Gruyter.
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Piano Sonata (Barber)

Improved to Good Article status by Jaguarnik (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 5 past nominations.

Jaguarnik (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Great article for a great film! I love all the hooks, but personally prefer ALT0. BorgQueen (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I have an image of the film poster to use for DYK, is it good to use?Jaguarnik (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that it wasn't free.Jaguarnik (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Yup, I've removed it. Too bad we can't use the film's screenshots either. The films first shown before 1943 are in the public domain in Russia, I believe. BorgQueen (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering if I should rename the article to Ivan the Terrible (Eisenstein)? The first part was released in 1945, but there are two parts (second of which was completed in 1946 and released in 1958) and the film covers both films, so calling it "1945 film" might not be entirely correct.Jaguarnik (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps ask those folks at WikiProject Films? They must have a naming guideline. BorgQueen (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello BorgQueen. I just want to point out that the stills from the first film are in the public domain, or at least that WikiCommons lists them all as such. I believe this is due to the condition This work is a film (a video fragment or a single shot from it) ... which was created by legal entity between January 1, 1929 and January 1, 1946, provided that it was first shown in the stated period. Kind regards, Pagliaccious (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, that's a relief! We could use some still images for DYK then. Just so you know, @Jaguarnik: the image must be in the article if you'd like to use it for DYK. BorgQueen (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

There are two stills in the article; one is of three of the main actors that I would like to use since it has nice composition, but I'm not certain that it was created before January 1946 (a still from the second film, despite what the wikicommons says). The other one is of Ivan the Terrible and Basmanov, from the first part, but it's not terribly interesting. Jaguarnik (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it's good to use (Russian public domain laws say that it enters public domain 70 years after the death of the author; it's a still from the film, I presume Eisenstein would be considered the author and 70 years has passed since his death. @Pagliaccious: @BorgQueen: How does the image look? Please let me know if there's any issue with the image/licensing.Jaguarnik (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

So it's a still, not a screenshot. Then please add (still pictured) to the hooks. The image looks OK to me. BorgQueen (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@BorgQueen:: So sorry to ping once again, but Pagliaccious has added an image to the article which I like much better for illustrating the film. Just wanted to get your approval for that image instead. Should be the final ping.Jaguarnik (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No worries. It's a fantastic image! Y BorgQueen (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)