Lungin’s Tsar As a Postmodern Film

Lungin’s Tsar As a Postmodern Film

Russia in the year 1566 seems to be a far stretch from the postmodern movement and generation in the 20th century.  Ivan the Terrible and his secret police, the oprichniki, terrorized Russians and their native land because he did not want to lose his power.  Because of this, Ivan used religion  as a way to maintain absolute control over Russia and became obsessed with the apocalypse.  Although Pavel Lungin’s Tsar may not seem like a postmodern film, the use of spectacle through film and miracles, Ivan’s use of religion as a readymade, and Ivan’s absolute spectatorship lends itself to postmodernism.

Tsar firstly displays postmodern theory through its use of film and miracles as spectacle.  Simply by using film as the medium turns this historical story into a spectacle.  According to Guy Debord history is not told for history’s sake, but for spectacle which Debord explains in “Society of the Spectacle.”  He says, “the spectacle, taken in the limited sense of 'mass media' which are its most glaring superficial manifestation,”(Debord, 112).  By using film, a form of ‘mass media’ to display this moment in history, Lungin’s Tsar becomes postmodern because it is shown through pure spectacle. Specifically in Tsar, miracles are shown in the film as a device to cause the audience to question whether Ivan the Terrible was crazy or a genius.  Historically there is no proof of any miracles happening around Ivan, so including them in the film lends them towards pure spectacle.  An instance of miracles used as spectacle in the film is at 0:44 minutes into the film.  Here Vassian challenges Ivan to cause lightning to strike while the virgins bathe in the river.  Here we see an over-the-shoulder high angle shot of Vassian from Ivan’s point of view.  This shows that Ivan is of greater power of Vassian, which is understandable, but it can also suggest that Ivan is looking down upon Vassian like God. Ivan rises above the camera, creating a low angle shot.  In the background there is a cross, which Ivan’s body blocks from the camera’s view when he rises.  This suggests he is more powerful or of equal power of God.  He raises his hand, praying for lightning to strike.  There is no lightning immediately after he raises his hand, but at 0:45 in the film lightning strikes where Ivan raised his hand.  Historically, there is no proof of this event, but it was instead added to the film as a type of spectacle. Simply by making the story of Ivan the Terrible a film, Tsar becomes postmodern, and the use of miracles a spectacle solidify this film as postmodern.  

Ivan the Terrible proves to be a postmodern character throughout Tsar.  More specifically,  Ivan uses religion as a readymade by simply interpreting religion and the bible to fit his needs.  In the postmodern movement, readymades are objects that an artists modifies or simply gives meaning to.  They give new meaning to an everyday object, most notable Marcel Duchamp’s “The Fountain” (1917).    Ivan treats religion as a readymade by giving it meaning in a way that benefits him.  Peter Sloterdijk explains this in his article “Rage and Time: a Psychoplitical Investigation”: 

What Marcel Duchamp achieved for art history during the early twentieth century, Osama Bin Laden repeats with the support of religious technicians for the Islam of the late twentieth century.  The significance of the readymade procedure for the modern cultural economy has been laid out in the subtle analyses of Boris Groys, and the effects of his work on contemporary cultural science have barely begun.  As a result of the subversive interpretation of the sacred tradition, we see the Islam, and in particular the traditional authority of the Ulema, the council of scholars and jurists, is undermined by the rebellious fascination of religious pirates. (Sloterdijk, 75-76)

This relates directly to Ivan’s use of the bible in Tsar.  Ivan’s “subversive interpretation of the sacred tradition” is the treatment of the bible as a readymade.  He changes the meaning of the Bible to give him more power.  Specifically in the film at 1:11, Philip refuses to sign the death warrant against two subjects because he realizes they are innocent.  Because Philip is defying what Ivan wanted, Ivan decides to leave the subjects’ judgement to a bear, saying that God will judge through the bear.  In this scene Lungin uses an over the shoulder high angle shot from Ivan down to the bear fight, like God looking down upon the scene.  A low angle shot is shown of the bear, showing his power over the subjects.  This scene shows Ivan using religion as a readymade, because his Metropolitan does not find these men guilty, which should be God’s word, but Ivan wants to see blood, so he defies Philip’s power and claims that God is in the bear.  God is not in the bear, considering it killed Masha, but Ivan changed the meaning of the religious choice made by Philip to suit his own needs.

Ivan uses religion as a readymade once again during a discussion with Philip about being the Metropolitan.   At 0:41 in Tsar Philip and Ivan discuss religion and prayers.  Philip says, “[p]reach love.  Without love our faith is weak.”  Ivan responds, “[t]here is no greater sin than opposition to the will of the Tsar, it is written that all authority comes from God.”  Clearly there is nothing in the Bible saying that opposing the Tsar is a sin.  Ivan is using his interpretation of the Bible as a readymade and using it to benefit himself.  By saying that opposing him is a sin, he becomes vengeful because he wants people to be punished for not obeying him.  Sloterdijk says, “the wish for revenge becomes at the same time inward and advances to the most intimate conversation of the soul with God,” (Sloterdijk, 86).  This relates to Ivan because through prayer and religion Ivan “wish[es] for revenge” among the people who defy his rule.   He interprets the Bible in a way that gives him more power, using it as a readymade.

Ivan also proves himself to be postmodern by being the ultimate spectator, anticipating the apocalypse.  Ivan is concerned with watching the end of the world and surviving it, whereas if most people knew the end of the world was coming, they would be worried about their death.  In postmodern society, people cannot grasp the fact that they will die because they do not have a concept of time.   Debord says, “[t]he spectator's consciousness, immobilized in the falsified center of the movement of its world, no longer experiences its life as a passage toward self-realization and toward death. One who has renounced using his life can no longer admit his death,” (Debord, 115).  Because Ivan is a spectator (torture camp, bear fight), he has lost his concept of time and cannot fathom the fact that he will die like everyone else, placing him as a postmodern spectator.  Peter Sloterdijk addresses this in his essay.  He says, “[t]he apocalyptics’ attitude is dominated by a fever of expectation, a happy sleeplessness of those dreaming of world annihilation and hoping that they will be spared.  This is the reason that apocalyptics can overlook pretty much all earthly miseries,” (Sloterdijk, 95).  This is seen throughout Tsar.  First of all, Ivan overlooks all of the torturous acts and lives lost from the oprichniki because he is expecting the end of the world.  Lungin highlights Ivan’s care for the apocalypse over human life at 1:03 in Tsar.  Here Lungin uses cross cuts to highlight Ivan’s views.  One scene is of Philip judging the two men who tried to poison the Tsar, and the other scene is of Ivan showing Masha the new castle Holy Jerusalem.  While Philip is explaining the value of a man’s life to the court, Ivan is instead concerned with the end of the world the through his new castle.  It has no windows because there will be nothing to see when the world ends, and there is no roof because there will be no weather.  Clearly Ivan is much more concerned about the apocalypse than a man’s life.  By cross cutting these scenes together, we see a direct juxtaposition showing that Ivan cares more about the end of the world than of a man’s life.  Because Ivan has lost the meaning of death because he is too distracted by the ultimate spectacle (apocalypse), he becomes a postmodern character.

Pavel Lungin’s Tsar takes place hundreds of years before the postmodern movement started.  Regardless, Lungin made this particular story of Ivan the Terrible a postmodern story.  Simply by using film (spectacle in itself)as a medium and miracles (added spectacle to the film) as a way to question the Tsar, this film becomes postmodern.  The story is no longer told for history’s sake, but for entertainment or spectacle.  Next, Lungin portrays Ivan as a postmodern character.  He uses religion as a readymade, giving it meaning to suite his needs, and becomes the ultimate spectator through the apocalypse.  Ivan’s obsession with the end of the world has given him a lack of understand of death and a man’s life.  Because Ivan cannot value a life, even his own, he has become obsessed with the ultimate spectacle, the apocalypse.  Although Tsar may not appear to be a postmodern film, it is postmodern through its use of spectacle, religion as a readymade, and spectatorship.

Works Cited

Debord, Guy. The Society of the Spectacle. New York: Zone Books, 1994. 115. Print.

Lungin, Pavel, dir. Tsar. Nashe Kino, 2009. Film. 29 Apr 2013.

Sloterdijk, Peter. Rage and Time: A Psychopolitical Investigation. New York: Columbia University 

Press, 2010. 75-99. Print.