Otets Sergiy

As a contemporary audience, we often approach silent films with an attitude of condescension. This initial sentiment lowers expectations but draws our attention to the everyday grammar of film language that we take for granted. Suddenly the glance object cut, the pan right and tilt down showing the elaborate ornamentation in the cathedral and the sparsely used close-ups become all the more impressive because we hold it to the standard of a silent film. While Father Sergius still suffers from the silent film dilemma of having the dominant influence of other mediums (such as theater and literature) it is exciting to see modern day film techniques in the infantile stage. Father Sergius is a silent film epic detailing the life of Prince Kasatsky from his years in school to his eventual position as a budding young officer. After discovering the woman he loves is the mistress to the Czar, the prince pursues a lifestyle devoid of succumbing to any and all earthly temptation as he transforms himself into the "saintly" Father Sergius. In a startling special effects sequence, Kasatsky regrets his decision longing for his former lover as she enters the frame as a ghostly spirit. Regardless of any standard preconceived silent film notions, the coordination, blocking and deep focus photography in the crowd scenes are remarkable. Also astonishing is the controversial acknowledgement of extra marital affairs within the royal family as well as the message of the film that seems to promote the excessive bourgeois lifestyle over the life of a clergyman. The regret that endures in Father Sergius suggests a longing for a life of excess, power and respect. Although arriving at a period where films were still testing the capacity of cinema, Father Sergius is an enjoyable experience of Russian cinema finding its footing.

"Otets Sergei" is a film that couldn't have been made in any other time period. Literally. The censorship of Czar-era Russia had tight regulations concerning religion and politics (the portrayal of the royal family). This movie was made before the revolution of 1917 in a time of turmoil, it could just barely be made then; boasting the name of Tolstoy being a big asset. After the revolution, no such movie would be made for a long time.

Otets Sergei has both a very unconventional religious figure and it portraits the Czar as having extra-marital relationships. At heart it is the life story of a young successful army officer, prince Kasatsky, who unknowingly falls in love with the mistress of the Czar. When he eventually finds out the truth about his soon-to-be-married wife (she wants to marry him to stop the rumors about her affair with the Czar), he is so shocked that he retreats to a monastery to become a monk (and after years Father Sergei). Later he battles with the temptations of sexual lust and the dreams of how things could have been.

The movie has many uncommonly modern characteristics. Besides the daring subject it has a rather strongly developed lead character, good storytelling and cinematography and a script which deals with human emotions without being exploitative or sentimental. Altogether it has a very modern touch to it for a movie made in 1917, although the lack of sound (originally it had a score played live to the audience) does make it a little weary at times. Still it is a prime example of the art film movement of pre-soviet Russia and a timeless story of unfulfilled love.

The film has a typical "Russian ending", with almost total humiliation of the central figure, but it is not there to morally condemn Kasatsky, it's just that this was how stories like this always ended in the tragedy genre. One could see a moral lesson here, but to me what makes this movie interesting is that it doesn't seem to want to give one.

This is the second time I've watched this film, "Father Sergius", which seems rather rare. I remember being very bored. Viewing it a second time causes one to face such questions as: am I a masochist? Am I trying to avert myself of cinema? Perhaps, I'm just too thorough in viewing these old silent films.

It's based on the Tolstoy novella, but literature and cinema are very different media, so that's no guarantee of any success. The story of Prince Stepán Kasátsky discovering his fiancée was the mistress of the Czar, so he then becomes a monk--eventually Father Sergius is faithful, but I don't consider that enough or even necessarily important in an adaptation. Co-director Yakov Protazanov was a prolific filmmaker not of the montage school, who made the curious communist sci-fi film "Aelita: Queen of Mars" (1924). Ivan Mozzhukhin was probably the major Russian actor of the day. As well, the settings of "Father Sergius" are lavish enough.

The major problem is that the film consists of static, long takes. The camera placement and film technique are common for the day, although prosaic, but the pacing is too ponderous. The bad acting and theatricality certainly don't make up for it. The scenes that remained in my mind over the years before seeing it again were those of Father Sergius's seclusion and his torment over lust. I didn't remember the finger incident, just the dullness. I've given the film a second chance, only to add nearly two more hours of boredom to my life.

Yakov Protazanov was a director from the early Russian cinema, the pre Eisenstein period. He made films in both Tsarist Russia and in the Communist Soviet Union. I have seen three films of him: "Queen of spades" (1916), Aelita, the queen of Mars" (1924) and most recently "Father Sergius".

I watched "Father Sergius" after watching "Night sun" (1990, Paolo and Vittorio Taviani), that is an adaptation of the same story by Leo Tolstoy. "Father Sergius" is about a man who tries all his life to become as devout as humanly possible. The exact meaning of the word devout is not exactly clear but it definitely entails getting rid of such things as longing for wealth, status and sexual satisfaction. In order to reach his goal he becomes a hermit. In the end he must conclude that all his attempts have failed.

If I am correct this failure is portrayed differently in the Protazanov and Taviani versions. In the Protazanov version Father Sergius (Ivan Mozzhukhin) sees a farmer's party in a local pub at the end of the film and thinks back at the gala parties at the court of the tsar he attended when he was young. In the Taviani version Father Sergius meets a girl from his former neighbourhood and sees that there is much devoutness in her sober and helpful way of life. In order to become devout one does not need to renounce daily life!

I haven't read the novel of Tolstoy, so I don't know which of the two adaptations is more faithful to this text. I think both endings capture the moral of the story rather well, and except for the ending the two films have more or less the same storyline. All in all the Taviani's remake seems rather superfluous to me.

As said the part of father Sergius is played by Ivan Mozzhukin. He was a big (and wealthy) star in Tsarist Russia, but after the Communist revolution his life was in danger. Under protection of the contra revolutionaries (the White) he fled to Western Europe and continued his film career until his death in 1939.

The way he portrays Father Sergius, especially in the second part of tne movie when Father Sergius is on the brink of madness, has much in common with the way Ivan Cherkasov plays Ivan the Terrible in the two films (1944 but especially 1958) of Sergei Eisenstein. This is remarkable because Ivan the Terrible longed for ever more status and power while Father Sergius on the other hand desperately tried to renounce it.

A very good film more than a century old. Actor Ivan Mozzhukin is riveting. No wonder he was the star of European cinema. One of the wealthiest actors of his day, he died in penury. Great cinematography. Good screenplay. Unfortunately stops when Father Sergius is taken to Siberia as a vagrant. The written work describes Father Sergius in Siberia--which is a crucial element of the short story. But the film succeeds, even when it cut short the story. Two other films have been made of the same story: a 1978 version from Russia and the 1990 Italian film adaptation by the famous Taviani brothers called " The Sun Also Shines at Night." I suspect that Sergei Eisenstein and his cinematographer Eduard Tisse built on visual ideas from this film when they made the classic "Ivan the Terrible, Parts I and II" and even actor Nikolai Cherkasov's portrayal of Ivan was built on on Mozzhukin's portrayal of Father Sergius.