ANDREI RUBLEV

[charliechaplinfan]

I've gone off on yet another tangent, courtesy of my film rental site. I've caught most of this film so far, it's beautiful but for me it didn't get going for the first hour. The rental copy says that it is illegal to rent or sell in the former states of the USSR. I presume the film upset the government when Tarkovsky made it.I was mostly confused, the subtitles don't always indicate who is speaking and it's filmed in a way that it's difficult to see who is speaking, then some of the characters look the same. I don't think my brain is fully engaged tonight and any insight from our members will be gratefully read.

[ChiO]

Doggone it...you've done it again. I watched it ages ago and remember it mostly as just one of the most beautiful films I'd ever seen. Since then, with my immersion into Orthodoxy, the importance of Rublev (the "real" person) as an iconographer would add a new layer of meaning. So, now, out I must pull the old VHS and rewatch.

I hate it when forced to do the right thing.

[charliechaplinfan]

ChiO, you're always coming to my rescue, I thank you for it. I've not finished the film yet, it has a haunting beauty. I'll be interested in comparing notes.

[knitwit45]

ChiO, you're always coming to my rescue, I thank you for it.

careful, he'll start demanding to be called "Sir ChiO"....

[charliechaplinfan]

I finished watching Andrei Rublev, can't say I'm any the wiser as to some of the finer points but I have enjoyed the experience. It took me aback at first, the DVD has a natural setting of Russian spoken by the actors, French narration and English subtitles, thankfully I could knock the French off, two languages was too confusing. I did like how Tarkovsky invoked the 15th century Russia, a lawless land were feuds raged and Tartars pillaged. I can see that Andrei had a struggle with his faith and why that struggle took place, I just feel like I'm a little too much in the dark as to the times it took place and the importance placed on iconography and churches. Really impressive scenes of the building of the bell and the opening shot of a man (we don't see him) being lifted high in the sky on presumably a giant balloon only to crash to earth.

I'm passing the book to you ChiO to see if you can make sense of my incoherent ramblings

[MichiganJ]

I wont presume to take the book away from ChiO, but am curious as to which version you saw? The film was immediately suppressed by the Soviets and Tarkovsky was ordered to make a number of cuts. The DVD edition by Criterion, which runs 205-minutes is, I believe, the most complete version and includes the graphic violence and nudity that was removed in the censored versions.

[ChiO]

There ain't no book in my possession on this, so write away, MichJ.

I saw the Criterion version when it came out, but I have the shorter VHS version (approx. 180 min.). I watched tape #1 today and hope to finish it tomorrow. For a little historical aesthetic background, here's an excerpt from The Meaning of Icons (L. Ouspensky & V. Lossky, 1999):

The XIVth, XVth and the first half of the XVIth centuries represent the finest flowering of Russian iconography which coincides with the finest flowering of Russian Sainthood, namely that of the ascetic type, which declines sharply in the second half of the XVIth century. ....

The borderline between the XIVth and the XVth centuries is connected with the name of the greatest iconographer, St. Andrew (Rublev) who worked with his friend and teacher, St. Daniel (the Black). .... The extraordinary depth of the spiritual vision of St. Andrew found its expression through his exceptional artistic talent. The creative art of Andrew Rublev is the most vivid manifestation in Russian iconography of the antique heritage. All of the beauty of antique art here comes to life, filled with a new and true meaning. His art is distinguished by a youthful freshness, a sense of measure, a supreme harmony of colours, an enchanting rhythm and music of line. The influence of St. Andrew on Russian Church art was immense. ...The art of St. Andrew left its impression on all XVth century Russian Church art which, in that period, reached the height of its artistic expression.

In analyzing the movie, it may be helpful to recognize that one of the things that distinguishes the Eastern Church from the Western is the Eastern Church's stronger tie to mysticism. Visually, a sense of mysticism does come through. And, as some have noted, this mysticism -- a reaction to official Socialist Realism -- and its political implications may speak as much about Tarkovsky as it does St. Andrei.

[MichiganJ]

While religion is certainly one of the core components of the film, what also interests me is how Andrei Rublev depicts the struggles of an artist trying to stay true to his artistic vision, let alone his humanity.

I think even from the opening sequence, where we get the POV shot of the guy flying on the balloon (and how great is that sequence), Tarkovsky is allowing us to revel along with the flier at being able to see familiar things in entirely new ways. Of course he then crashes (Is he killed? I don't remember), but from the sounds of his delight at the beauty he's witnessing, I get the impression that for him, death (or a broken leg) is a small price to pay.

I really like this film. It has one stunning sequence after another and is filled with truly amazing and beautiful camera moves. Tarkovsky's staging is also impeccable, particularly in the way he depicts some of the more violent and graphic (for the time) sequences. But that said, I can't help but be appalled at the way Tarkovsky abuses the animals. I don't care that the cow had some kind of asbestos pad, the poor thing was on fire. And there's no doubt about what happens to the horse. It's been a couple of years since I've seen the film but those images are pretty much etched into my brain and make the film difficult, though not impossible, to revisit with any regularity.

[charliechaplinfan]

The version I saw ran to 185 minutes, it is an Articfical Eye release, they are usually Criterion releases, released to the region 2 market. It might explain why I had some difficulty with the narrative.

There's no doubt that visually it is a stunning film and the internal struggles of Andrei matched with the changing landscape and invasions keep the pace flowing. Non of the violence really comes through in this version although I did see the scene with the horse and it chilled me. I don't remember seeing the cow.

One of the things that set this movie apart is the visuals, like you say the opening sequence is amazing, I felt the same with some of the bell scenes. it really makes me appreciate how much physical hard work and the primitive methods used for casting a bell, nothing that I ever gave much though to but watching it, I'm amazed.

Thanks for the background on iconography, ChiO. I thought the Russian church was stricter in those days but the mysticism element fits really well. They are superstitious and this explains Andrei behaviour and refusal to paint even more.

All in all, I've found this one of the most challenging films I've ever attempted to watch.

Are all his films like this?

[ChiO]

MichJ wrote:
While religion is certainly one of the core components of the film, what also interests me is how Andrei Rublev depicts the struggles of an artist trying to stay true to his artistic vision, let alone his humanity.

I agree...and that's why it could be argued that the movie is as much about Tarkovsky as it is about Rublev, and that the role of the artist in society and his artistic vision and drive are, at their core, mystical. In that respect, I see some affinity with BLOW UP and PEEPING TOM (and, if one is willing to stretch a bit further and look from a different angle, LOLA MONTES).

CCF asked:
Are all his films like this?

Tarkovsky is the greatest of them all. He moves with such naturalness in the room of dreams. He doesn't explain. What should he explain anyhow? -- Ingmar Bergman

Tarkovsky only made eight feature films, and SOLARIS is the only other one I've seen, though I have an unwatched copy of THE STEAMROLLER AND THE VIOLIN, his first feature. I may be exceedingly dense, but I find 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY to be a piece of cake to interpret, even on the first viewing, compared to SOLARIS. But maybe that's okay. One of my reference books says this about THE MIRROR:

Mirror is quintessential Tarkovsky; ravishing to look at, full of classical music, and so narratively dense as to be almost unfathomable on a first viewing.

Yikes!

[Mr. Arkadin]

MichJ wrote:
While religion is certainly one of the core components of the film, what also interests me is how Andrei Rublev depicts the struggles of an artist trying to stay true to his artistic vision, let alone his humanity.

I agree...and that's why it could be argued that the movie is as much about Tarkovsky as it is about Rublev, and that the role of the artist in society and his artistic vision and drive are, at their core, mystical. In that respect, I see some affinity with BLOW UP and PEEPING TOM (and, if one is willing to stretch a bit further and look from a different angle, LOLA MONTES).

CCF asked:
Are all his films like this?

Tarkovsky is the greatest of them all. He moves with such naturalness in the room of dreams. He doesn't explain. What should he explain anyhow? -- Ingmar Bergman

Tarkovsky only made eight feature films, and SOLARIS is the only other one I've seen, though I have an unwatched copy of THE STEAMROLLER AND THE VIOLIN, his first feature. I may be exceedingly dense, but I find 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY to be a piece of cake to interpret, even on the first viewing, compared to SOLARIS. But maybe that's okay. One of my reference books says this about THE MIRROR:

Mirror is quintessential Tarkovsky; ravishing to look at, full of classical music, and so narratively dense as to be almost unfathomable on a first viewing.

Yikes!

I'm a very busy man at the moment, but for a single Tarkovsky work, I'll take Stalker (1979), which is perhaps one of the greatest and deepest spiritual films ever made.

[charliechaplinfan]

I feel a little out of my depth with Tarkovsky, it seems Bergman is a stroll in the park in comparison but hey, I mastered Bergman, my next challenge. I'll put some more on the rental list and make sure the brain is completely connected before I watch them.