An analytical assessment of the audio-visual structure in Eisenstein's "Alexander Nevsky" which utilizes both primary and secondary sources. I focus on the functional and conceptual aspects of the film's score by contextualizing it within the framework of Eisenstein's theory of sound-film and the nature of Eisenstein-Prokofiev collaboration.

Summary:

Seroff’s book is another biography of Sergei Prokofiev. Chapter 26 of his book opens up with Prokofiev’s journey to the US in early 1938 and ends a year later when Prokofiev himself conducted the first performance of the cantata Alexander Nevsky, which he adapted from his score for the movie. The chapter is heavily based on primary sources - Prokofiev’s and Eisenstein’s statements about each other, their quotes and letters about their collaboration on Nevsky, but it also includes an article that Prokofiev wrote later on about his journey to the US, which includes his opinions on contemporary American music. Seroff gives a full picture of the character of Prokofiev’s composition, ranging from the “upside-down” means of orchestration, to placement of the microphones and mixing experiments in the studios. He also examines the “exceptionally harmonious relationship that stemmed from Eisenstein’s understanding and knowledge of Prokofiev’s works, and of Prokofiev the man” (217), but also asserts that “the two collaborators, however, did not always agree” (219). Seroff also talks about Prokofiev’s “nationalistic” music, but agrees with Eisenstein that through his “true originality in the Hegelian sense, Prokofiev was both national and international” (218).

Evaluation & Analysis:

    Seroff’s discourse on the nature of collaboration between Eisenstein and Prokofiev is exceptional, although Seroff mistakenly dates Prokofiev’s visit to United States to 1939, instead of 1938. Unlike Robinson, Seroff acknowledges the fact that Prokofiev bought home with him some technical knowledge in sound-film production, which he had acquired while visiting film studios in Hollywood. Although they both explore Prokofiev’s guiding principle in using Russian folk music of the 13th century by recomposing it with the instrumental possibilities of the 20th century orchestra, Seroff adds another dimension to his music by convincingly presenting Prokofiev’s score not only as profoundly nationalistic, but also as very international, due to the variety of his musical language that incorporates not only purely national, historical or patriotic themes, but themes of Renaissance Italy and Shakespearean England. This logically implicates that there was also a temporal juxtaposition in Prokofiev’s score on various levels – using contemporary orchestra to recreate the Russian folksongs of the 13th century but also drawing the inspiration from the past, from the heroic deeds of Russia in 19th century (defeating Napoleon), while simultaneously subtly integrating into the score the elements from the Byzantine and European cultures of medieval times. Based on this, the affinity between Eisenstein and Prokofiev has a common ground; one that might be labeled paradoxical synchronization. For Eisenstein, it would be the non-synchronization of sound to visual images (music not as mere accompaniment) and his endorsement of the contrapuntal use of sound, while for Prokofiev it would be a two-layered paradoxical synchronization of a huge variety of musical themes (old & new, national & international).

Summary:

In this chapter, temporally bound to years 1938 and 1939 and thus coinciding with Eisenstein’s production of Alexander Nevsky, Robinson offers a close look on Prokofiev’s life in the harsh climate of Soviet reality and describes his professional relationship with Eisenstein before and during the shooting of the movie. He notes that both of them had actually a great deal of common, particularly the suspicion shadow casting over them for their international connections, travel abroad and supposed “cosmopolitanism”, but affirms that Alexander Nevsky “would open an important new stage in the careers of both director and composer” (350), since it re-instigated Eisenstein’s reputation as a director and inspire Prokofiev’s first successful “nationalistic” music. Robinson echoes Prokofiev’s enthusiasm about the possibilities of music in cinema and Eisenstein’s inclusion of Prokofiev in all aspects of the production of Nevsky. The chapter also provides a short description of the film score, ranging from themes, choice of instruments, folk motifs and elaborates on Prokofiev’s discovery of the enormous potential of recorded sound (mixing, distortion, etc.)

Evaluation & Analysis:

    This chapter in Prokofiev’s biography does not pretend to offer any deep analytical assessment of Eisenstein-Prokofiev collaboration; as any other biography it only describes the facts that happened in someone’s life at certain point (naturally, some sort of cause-effect relationship between the events has to be outlined or logically discernible). Yet, even in this respect, Robinson could have done a little more. For example, he mentions that in early 1938 (prior to the beginning of Nevsky shooting), Prokofiev went to visit Hollywood, where he took a firsthand look at the latest advances in filmmaking technology. Taking into account the undisputable fact that the Hollywood cinema at the time was technologically (sound and camera equipment, studios, etc.) far ahead of the Soviet film industry, it seems peculiar that Robinson mentions it in only one sentence and then swiftly moves to the discussion of Nevsky. Robinson seems to ignore the well-documented fact that Prokofiev’s encounter with Hollywood enabled him to study - in-depth and around the most prominent Hollywood filmmakers of that era - the use sound and music in the cinema. Robinson is either unaware or indifferent to the fact that the enormous knowledge Prokofiev gained in the US, and especially from Walt Disney, was subsequently applied at the shooting sessions of Nevsky and in the composition of musical score for the movie.
On the other hand, Robinson makes a very wise observation that the foundation for a successful collaboration between Eisenstein and Prokofiev is to be found in their similar understanding of the active (not just accompanying) role the music could and should play in film – indeed, a radically different position from Hollywood. Yet overall, Robinson fails to connect the important dots – he completely disregards Hollywood’s influence on Prokofiev in terms of sound technology and experimentation; and he also falls short to explain that despite this influence, Prokofiev believed the film music has more than an accompanying function to images presented on the screen. Eisenstein and Prokofiev shared this philosophical platform and could therefore establish a very beneficial working relationship, but Robinson’s cause-effect explanation for that is simply inadequate and insufficient.