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:

This is a compilation of correspondence between Eisenstein and Prokofiev from July 1939 to February 1946, with a short analysis and background written by Levaco at the beginning of the article. Although none of the letters directly refers to their collaboration on Alexander Nevsky, Levaco correctly points out that “these fragments of the writings of both artists provide…cursory insights into the character of their relationship, {but} do not reveal, for instance, the state of their being” (7). He also places this brief correspondence in its historical context (high Stalinism) and reminds the readers that both of them certainly exercised a measure of restraint, which consequently obscures the real dimensions of their personalities and collaboration.

Evaluation & Analysis:

    The Eisenstein-Prokofiev correspondence is a primary source that is a direct evidence for their mutual professional respect. Prokofiev’s letter of July 30, 1939 is particularly important, because it suggests that a composer should only commit himself to work in the film industry only if his investment would contribute significantly, that is only if his music would play a creative role in the movie by integrating with the film structure, rather than only accompanying it. It is a super-temporal idea shared by the majority of contemporary composers, but at that time, Prokofiev was frustrated that the audience considers the “music to be some sort of appendage, not deserving any particular attention” (9). At the end of the letter, Prokofiev exclaims that he “a priori believes in Eisenstein – as an opera régisseur!” what further underlines the tendency of academia to consider Nevsky a film of operatic character (also discussed in other articles presented here). Their letter exchanges strongly indicate their absolute artistic compatibility, which is manifested in their works that stand out as shining examples of the ground-breaking design in mixing film and music.
    Levaco does a good job in summarizing their professional relationship, but at one point, he lacks clarity and his statement becomes ambiguous. He claims Prokofiev wrote around 29 musical numbers for the cinema, but because Prokofiev wrote music only for eight movies, Levaco’s number is either plain wrong or stands for something else.