Ivan The Terrible
Feb. 23rd, 2010 06:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chaniFirst off, a few words on last Sunday's episode of Being Human. Spoilers under the cut.
I enjoyed it even though I sort of still hoped that Ivan would survive because he was my favourite new character. His death and Mitchell's survival don't make sense in terms of logics, but I guess that Ivan was not made to last, and the character was too old-fashioned and too romantic to live on in the BH world. It was a character that didn't fit in the tone and realistic feel of BH. The 1941 prologue was beautiful though.
I will definitely miss Ivan, the most glamorous vampire we have seen on BH so far.
Also I enjoyed George's life turning into his worst nightmare, just because of the clock change (heehee!). The wolf was literaly in the sheep pen, among lambs! His wild run looked like some very bad trip. I like the idea of BH being a sort of Trainspotting with Werewolves and Vampires.
Speaking of train...don't tell me that the train scene didn't recall Drusilla's picnic in "Crush"! Even the Mitchell/Daisy bloody sex reminded me of Dru/Spike in "FFL" after he killed the Chinese slayer! Except that it was BH so the scenes had a more modern look and Daisy doesn't play with dolls.
Mitchell's idea of personal hygiene made me laugh (btw I wonder if there's an inside joke about Mitchell going "clean" and then wallowing in dirty stuff)...but I thought that the show tends to indulge in gratuitous shirtless scenes these days. How many times have we witnessed Mitchell changed his clothes?
Also it is me or is there another plothole (besides Ivan saving Mitchell's unlife but losing his) when Mitchell figured out Lucy's betrayal? I mean, he seemed to have an epiphany when he heard Lucy's last name? Why? Does it mean that he never knew her last name? Did she use a fake name in the hospital? And if it were the case, I am not sure that I remember a previous scene in which Mitchell heard about an enemy named Jaggat? I thought that he would figure out Lucy's hidden agenda when George and Annie would have tell him about Nina's new friends since Nina mentioned Professor Jaggat but no, it's just the coroner's mentioning Lucy Jaggat that did it. Weird.
Secondly, I'm avoiding Marking Hell so I have rewatched another of Eisenstein's movies: Ivan Groznyy I . I wanted to rewatch it since I watched Csar by Pavel Lounguine, a film I had mixed feelings about. I have yet part II (the second opus that Stalin forbid and was released in 1958 only, under Khrushchev) to watch and I intend watching October too. Visual-wise, it is really something. The photography is gorgeous; every shot is framed like a painting with lots of symbolical meaning. Each scene is precisely plotted and designed. The theatrical facial expressions (an oversuse of bulging eyes, especially)and poses, the exaggerated acting and the many closeups may be bizarre and ludicrous for nowadays' audiences but they served Eisenstein's poetical ideas and give the film a surreal charm. The overacting and closeups sort of recalls silent movies in which gestures and faces told the story but the film here is more stylised than silent movies and the expressions/portraits are sometimes so intense that the magic works at the end of the day. The characters manage to convey true emotions from time to time (Anastasia and Andrei Kurbsky, above all) but they are more metaphors than real characters hence their resemblance to animals (Ivan being an eagle of course). And the play on lighting and shadows thrown against the walls is brilliant (Eisenstein might have been inspired by Disney's Fantasia). Of course there's propaganda and the film served Russian nationalism in 1944 but we are far far away from Jdanovism and "socialist realism"!
I'm pretty sure that Coppola's drew part of his inspiration for Dracula in Ivan Groznyy Part I. Both films are splendid and highly stylised, and there's something in Vald, not only in the prologue after Elisabetha's death but also in his interactions with Mina, that recalled Ivan (who's quite sexy too in a few scenes)and his relationship with Anastasia. And Coppola played with shadows on walls and floor too. I can see a sort of cinema filiation from Murnau and Lang to Eisenstein and Coppola.
I think I still prefer Alexander Nevsky ––by the way Prokofiev scored Groznyy too and that soundtrack music is great but I find it to be less powerful and less memorable than the music he composed for Alexander Nevsky––but Ivan is also a beautiful film that deserves to be praised. Eisenstein was a poet and a wizard.
I enjoyed it even though I sort of still hoped that Ivan would survive because he was my favourite new character. His death and Mitchell's survival don't make sense in terms of logics, but I guess that Ivan was not made to last, and the character was too old-fashioned and too romantic to live on in the BH world. It was a character that didn't fit in the tone and realistic feel of BH. The 1941 prologue was beautiful though.
I will definitely miss Ivan, the most glamorous vampire we have seen on BH so far.
Also I enjoyed George's life turning into his worst nightmare, just because of the clock change (heehee!). The wolf was literaly in the sheep pen, among lambs! His wild run looked like some very bad trip. I like the idea of BH being a sort of Trainspotting with Werewolves and Vampires.
Speaking of train...don't tell me that the train scene didn't recall Drusilla's picnic in "Crush"! Even the Mitchell/Daisy bloody sex reminded me of Dru/Spike in "FFL" after he killed the Chinese slayer! Except that it was BH so the scenes had a more modern look and Daisy doesn't play with dolls.
Mitchell's idea of personal hygiene made me laugh (btw I wonder if there's an inside joke about Mitchell going "clean" and then wallowing in dirty stuff)...but I thought that the show tends to indulge in gratuitous shirtless scenes these days. How many times have we witnessed Mitchell changed his clothes?
Also it is me or is there another plothole (besides Ivan saving Mitchell's unlife but losing his) when Mitchell figured out Lucy's betrayal? I mean, he seemed to have an epiphany when he heard Lucy's last name? Why? Does it mean that he never knew her last name? Did she use a fake name in the hospital? And if it were the case, I am not sure that I remember a previous scene in which Mitchell heard about an enemy named Jaggat? I thought that he would figure out Lucy's hidden agenda when George and Annie would have tell him about Nina's new friends since Nina mentioned Professor Jaggat but no, it's just the coroner's mentioning Lucy Jaggat that did it. Weird.
Secondly, I'm avoiding Marking Hell so I have rewatched another of Eisenstein's movies: Ivan Groznyy I . I wanted to rewatch it since I watched Csar by Pavel Lounguine, a film I had mixed feelings about. I have yet part II (the second opus that Stalin forbid and was released in 1958 only, under Khrushchev) to watch and I intend watching October too. Visual-wise, it is really something. The photography is gorgeous; every shot is framed like a painting with lots of symbolical meaning. Each scene is precisely plotted and designed. The theatrical facial expressions (an oversuse of bulging eyes, especially)and poses, the exaggerated acting and the many closeups may be bizarre and ludicrous for nowadays' audiences but they served Eisenstein's poetical ideas and give the film a surreal charm. The overacting and closeups sort of recalls silent movies in which gestures and faces told the story but the film here is more stylised than silent movies and the expressions/portraits are sometimes so intense that the magic works at the end of the day. The characters manage to convey true emotions from time to time (Anastasia and Andrei Kurbsky, above all) but they are more metaphors than real characters hence their resemblance to animals (Ivan being an eagle of course). And the play on lighting and shadows thrown against the walls is brilliant (Eisenstein might have been inspired by Disney's Fantasia). Of course there's propaganda and the film served Russian nationalism in 1944 but we are far far away from Jdanovism and "socialist realism"!
I'm pretty sure that Coppola's drew part of his inspiration for Dracula in Ivan Groznyy Part I. Both films are splendid and highly stylised, and there's something in Vald, not only in the prologue after Elisabetha's death but also in his interactions with Mina, that recalled Ivan (who's quite sexy too in a few scenes)and his relationship with Anastasia. And Coppola played with shadows on walls and floor too. I can see a sort of cinema filiation from Murnau and Lang to Eisenstein and Coppola.
I think I still prefer Alexander Nevsky ––by the way Prokofiev scored Groznyy too and that soundtrack music is great but I find it to be less powerful and less memorable than the music he composed for Alexander Nevsky––but Ivan is also a beautiful film that deserves to be praised. Eisenstein was a poet and a wizard.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-02-23 08:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-24 06:17 pm (UTC)Also, I forgot to mention it on my post but, did you notice that many little girls are named Molly on tv shows?
no subject
Date: 2010-02-24 09:15 pm (UTC)His death and Mitchell's survival don't make sense in terms of logics
It looked like he pushed Mitchell away from the blast, so maybe he took the brunt of it?
The wolf was literaly in the sheep pen, among lambs!
I know! It was HORRIBLE! I had to watch through my fingers.
Mitchell's idea of personal hygiene made me laugh
Oh that was fantastic! And - personally - I'm not objecting to the shirtless factor! *g*
Why? Does it mean that he never knew her last name?
Must do. It's a bit strange, but then he's only a porter, so... *shrugs* It just about works.
And if it were the case, I am not sure that I remember a previous scene in which Mitchell heard about an enemy named Jaggat?
It's mentioned twice when they talk about the people with the 'cure' - I noticed, and wondered if it'd ring a bell for Mitchell, but both times he wasn't really paying attention. Also they only said 'Professor Jaggat'. Guess they don't know her first name?
it's just the coroner's mentioning Lucy Jaggat that did it.
Not the coroner (he mentioned 'Lucy', which made it clear that she had betrayed Mitchell) - it was the Sarcastic Chaplain who finally said her full name. *loves the Chaplain*
no subject
Date: 2010-02-24 09:39 pm (UTC)I guess that Coroner and Chaplain sort of merged in my mind!
It's mentioned twice when they talk about the people with the 'cure' - I noticed, and wondered if it'd ring a bell for Mitchell, but both times he wasn't really paying attention. Also they only said 'Professor Jaggat'. Guess they don't know her first name?
When exactly? Was it when Mitchell was "cleaning up"? I only remember Nina mentioning Professor Jaggat once when talking to Annie and George, and Mitchell wasn't there.
It's possible that I have missed parts of dialogues though. Things would be so much easier for me if I had subtitles!
no subject
Date: 2010-02-24 10:29 pm (UTC)As I said in my own review, he's the only vampire I can think of who's struck me as genuinely *old*. Not just 'from-a-different-time', but someone's who's seen everything, and done everything, and is now just sitting on the porch of life, watching the kids play and fool around with a fond, but melancholy, smile.
I guess that Coroner and Chaplain sort of merged in my mind!
Oh noes! The Chaplain is Made of Awesome!
Was it when Mitchell was "cleaning up"?
Definitely then, and possibly earlier on too. (It's late, I'm tired... But twice.)
Things would be so much easier for me if I had subtitles!
I can imagine! I've lived in England for 14 years now, and even now things sometimes pass me by...