Talk:Alexander Nevsky (film)

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)

The article takes a lot of liberty on defaming Stalin

And yet there are no sources or citations.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody asks for citations when you're popular. It's the Wikipedia way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.247.73 (talk) 04:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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 Hells 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)

This set of paragraphs conveys no information. If you're going to talk how about how bad a film is, you need to give an example, not just keep iterating that it is "bad". I haven't the foggiest idea what "film grammar" is. And sign your name.

CharlesTheBold (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I think you have no real concept of film grammar or composition 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 commentary track before you make a judgment?

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)

Random Comment

How is there such a thing as a spoiler warning for a 1938 film?

Erm... for people who haven't seen it yet? Cop 633 01:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Great Battle of Lake Peipus at Mehikoorma Strait

This is the common version of the "Battle of the Peipsenjärv" in Estonia derived from Estonians who watched what happened from the Estonian side of the strait and repeated it from generations to generations so the story still lives today. It was sunny day in April 1242 and it was quite warm. The Teutonic Knights had gathered together nearby small fisherman village. In morning hours they held prayers for victory and some suggested to their chief to attack at ones over the narrow strait (about two km wide on its narrowest place). The Grandmaster refused saying he will wait as long as the sun is on its highest position for those, still missing brothers from Dorpat. But they did not arrive. The Novgorodians had been garhering to the eastern shore of strait. Most of them were ordinary citizens of Novgorod and forced by Alexander Nevski and the Novgorodian pajars to join their military expedinture. They could not fight and were very afraid shouting prayers for God. At last the Chief of Teutonic Knights gave order for attack and the Khights rode to the ice. The Estonian fishermen noticed that they rode too close each other on the ice. Then they attacked bearing armoured shirt covers for themselves and also their tall horses had iron protection. About halfway in the strait the Knights put their horses run. At this moment Alexanders footmen begun to run to escape as fast as their feets could bear. There was total chaos in Novgorodian lines. But suddenly, about less than 100 meters from the eastern shore, the ice broke under too close each other riding Knights and most of then fell under ice and drowned. Those few who managed to stop thier horsed avoided the drowning and returned without their leaders to Estonian side being much more careful and avoided ride too close each other and here the ice beared so that they could landed. This was the "Great Victory in the Battle of Peipsen Lake". Most important detail in this story is, that there was not any fighting in the ice between the Knights and Novgorodians. When the ice started to broke the Novgorodians stopped their escape and returned to look how the Knights vanished under the water. After this the Orthodox priests started to sing Hospoti bomiloojaa so loudly that it was heard to the opposite beach. One can believe what they want, but how this story still lives on, if it is not true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.114.194.93 (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Not a public domain film

Copyright was restored to Rigma America Corp. under the GATT treaty in 1998: http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/1998/63fr5141.html 69.110.235.152 (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Videos with this movie

These sites: [[1]] and [[2]] have parts of this soviet movie.Agre22 (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)agre22

Insignificant Trivia

Wikipedia is a tertiary source. This means that Wikipedia is a catalogue of secondary sources and is not a venue for original search. This means that - in principle - everything included in Wikipedia should be tied to a secondary source and sourced. Everything without a source is subject to deletion without cause. No factoid is innocent until proven guilty. If it doesn't have a source it should be gone. This allows us the luxury of having less stuff with more confidence it is right rather than more stuff where we have no idea what is right or what is wrong. Some things may be allowed to remain unsourced as a courtesy. On top of this, the requirement of the existence of a secondary source ensures significance. If no writer of any secondary source out there has bothered to mention a factoid, it is probably insignificant and not worthy of inclusion. The more insignificant nonsense that gets included, the harder a reader has to work to get significant information out of an article.

In fact, you will notice that truth is not a sufficient condition for inclusion. It is truth as evidence by a secondary source. Typically truth not evidenced by a secondary source is original research, and thus does not merit inclusion. It may be true that in some book the character Joe Bob was nicknamed "Grendel", and you know this is true because you read the book, but this is original research since you are not using a secondary source.Ekwos (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Simpsons

Should the inclusion of some of the film's music in an episode of The Simpsons be included in this article? 96.18.102.128 (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)