I doubt any of your friends have been calling up saying you gotta see Ivan the Terrible Part II (en.m.wikipedia.org/...), so I'll probably be the first. After watching Part I, do what Stalin didn't want Russians to do and watch Part II: for the history of how some artists react to authoritarian pressure—not for 16th century Russian history, for as a work of history, Ivan the Terrible is terrible, although to Stalin not Terrible enough; and to learn about the 21st century marketing of the ironic globalization of nationalism, for as a foreshadowing of how Putin and Trump are trying to make the world their movie, Ivan the Terrible Part II is terrifying.
Plot:
Sergei Eisenstein wanted to make movies. Stalin said make movies about Ivan the Terrible to help us win the war. Eisenstein said of course. So during World War II, as the Soviet Union was fighting for survival against Hitler, vast sums were spent making a two-part epic about the Russian proto-nationalist Ivan IV that was meant to be three parts. That is how much Stalin valued the power of myth, especially using movies.
The first part, completed in 1944, won Stalin's approval and a Stalin Prize. This was the same year Stalin abandoned the Internationale for a Russian-centric national anthem (en.m.wikipedia.org/...). In Part I, Ivan is depicted as a brilliant and devout young man, a populist strategic genius resolute to build an autocratic nation-state that would allow Russia to not only be united but also to expand its boundaries to deal with Russia's geographical problems (www.theatlantic.com/...) and ensure that Russia did not have to pay off hostile foreign powers.
The next year Part II was completed. Stalin said it could not be released, and so it wasn't. In early 1946, a despondent Eisenstein had a heart attack and production on Part III ceased. Only 20 minutes of Part III were completed, which Stalin ordered destroyed after Eisenstein's death in 1948, so you can only see a few minutes of that which somehow escaped destruction.
Review of Ivan the Terrible Part II by an Audience of One:
What was so "disgusting" (www.rbth.com/...) to Stalin about Part II?
“Tsar Ivan was a great and wise ruler… His wisdom lay in the fact that he stood for national interests and did not let foreigners into the country... Ivan the Terrible was a very cruel person. You can depict him as a cruel man, but you have to show why he had to be cruel. One of the mistakes of Ivan concerned the fact that he did not entirely butcher the five major feudal families. …Then, there would not be troubles later on. .. He should have been more resolute,” Stalin said pointing to the fact that Eisenstein’s Ivan was “indecisive, resembling Hamlet.”
***
Besides the Tsar’s personality, Eisenstein had a different view of the conflict with the boyars. Stalin saw Ivan’s guard regiments (oprichniks), which were formed to fight his opponents, as a “progressive army.” “You depict oprichniks as Ku Klux Klan,” complained Stalin.
Putin and Trump may not have spent any time in their private conversations talking about movies, including Ivan the Terrible Part II. But as both the producers and film critics of the movie they are trying to make in our world, they want to appear first and foremost as resolute in pursuit of a "virtuous" globalized nationalist vision of orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality:
The Russian motto "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality" was coined by Count Sergey Uvarov and adopted by Emperor Nicholas I as official ideology.[1] Three components of Uvarov's triad were:
(en.m.wikipedia.org/...)
Trump of course could care less as a person about religion, but he sees religion as one of the centerpieces of their movie. Like in Putin's Russia, this movie harnesses the far right for muscle and energy, while, as necessary or helpful to maintaining power, preserving the thinnest of veneers of multi-national tolerance.
Their movie depends on "battling for control of history," hence both Trump's and Putin's fixation on monuments (www.themoscowtimes.com/...).
They feel entitled to stop at nothing to achieve their vision, and their devout love them for their viciousness. Part I was getting Trump elected the first time. The U.S. presidential election of 2020 will likely decide if their shared vision will prevail over the wavering elements of democracy standing in their way. They are trying to push democracy down, and standing up ahistorical monuments is a subplot to Part II, which is centered on reelecting a cheap cinematic character, stylishly dressed up by Putin, told where to stand, basking in the adulation, real, feigned, or imagined, it doesn't really matter.