Talk:Alexander Nevsky (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot overview, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. We are always looking for new members! Join us today!

could someone add the details of the love story? i know it's not why the film is chiefly remembered but i'd actually like a detailed synopsis. Thx. 140.180.11.37 06:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doesn't hold up very well

For years, I've been told what a masterpiece Nevsky is, but for various reasons had never gotten around to watching it. But recently, I watched this picture on a fairly decent DVD edition, fully expecting to be overwhelemed. Instead, I was surprised at how bad the film actually is.

Nevsky does not compare, technically or artistically, to any of the average Hollywood productions of the times. There are a whole host of mistakes and breaks of basic film grammar that are so egregious that I could not explain them away as "artistic". The only reasonable explanation I could come up with is that it is questionable whether Eisenstein was even aware of the basic rules of filmmaking and film editing. Even Hell's Angels, made a full decade before Nevsky by a rank amateur, Howard Hughes, is a far better picture in terms of basic film grammar, editing, composition and performance. And when compared to strong pictures like Gone with the Wind or Citizen Kane, made barely a year and three years after Nevsky respectively, Eisenstein's "masterpiece" looks positively ancient, embarrassingly so.

My own conclusion is that Nevsky and Eisenstein's work in general is highly regarded for reasons that have little to do with filmmaking and everything to do with politics. --200.74.66.136 23:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, I think you have no real concept of film grammer or compistion or you wouldn't be making such outlandish claims. In fact, Eisenstein composes whole sequences with very minute attention to compostion, almost to the point where single shots are painterly in their effect. The sequence where he introduces the white Knights is brilliant in that Eisenstein starts out on a close-up and ends the scene in a wideshot--the exact opposite of what most medicore directors where doing at the time. I could go on and on...why not pickup a book on it or listen to the commenatary track before you make a judgment?

[edit] Simply the greatest battle sequence of it's time

You don't have to go far to find the influential aspects of Nevsky in modern day films and popular culture.

Today's clasics like StarWars, Conan the Barbarian or Ralph Bakshi's Wizards are all inspired by Eisenstein's masterpiece Alexander Nevsky. From the action sequences, to camera angels and of course the unique costume designs from Nevsky changed the way that epic films are made to this day.--66.163.6.3 14:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)