Quantity:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

"A portrait of the artist - the greatest Russian icon painter as depicted by the greatest Russian filmmaker"

Written By: Nathan Andersen

"Juxtaposing a person with an environment that is boundless, collating him with a countless number of people passing by close to him and far away, relating a person to the whole world, that is the meaning of cinema" - Andrei Tarkovsky

Andrei Tarkovsky's experimental epic film does more than explore the life and development of the great Russian icon painter Andrei Rublev. It is also a compelling and rigorous exploration of the nature of art. Made while Tarkovsky was himself reflecting on the nature of his artistry and on the relation between his vision and the ideology and politics of the institutions that governed Soviet cinema, the film also raises questions about the obligations of the artist and the ultimate value of art.

There is a story arc here, that introduces us to an ambitious and talented young painter, and his companions and mentors Danill and Kirill, as they leave the monastery where they have lived and learned in order to find work elsewhere. Andrei's success leads to friction with Danill and a break with the jealous Kirill, but he discovers that success carries with it the price of high expectations, and comes to wonder whether he can accommodate his personal vision to the demands of his benefactors. A civil war in Russia and its devastating consequences leads Andrei to renounce painting and take a vow of silence, and the remainder of the story explores (experientially, historically and imaginatively) how it is that he returned to art in order to create the works at the Trinity Cathedral for which he is rightfully revered as the greatest of Russian icon painters. While little is known about his life, especially before 1408, Tarkovsky ties the known incidents together with episodes that suggest both his personal development and the political background in which he worked. One pivotal element of the period, for example, was the frequent Tatar invasions, which in some cases were in fact encouraged by Russians striving to achieve political power over rivals. Another was the tension between the official orthodox religion and the lingering elements of pagan traditions among the peasants, exemplified here by the jester and the fertility rituals.

Tarkovsky is not, however, merely interested in delivering a psychologically and historically realistic portrait of the artist. In fact, he suggests in Sculpting in Time that he encouraged his designers to shy away from strict historical accuracy in favor of simple designs that revealed an emotional truth. More distinctive is his decision to include elements that establish a tone and theme, even if they are not strictly connected with the story of Rublev, such as the prologue that depicts a man who strives to escape into the air in a makeshift hot-air baloon constructed of skins and bladders. The center of the film remains Rublev, but he is depicted as above all an observer, who cares about and is interested in people, reluctant to pass judgment. He watches the bawdy jester, whose art consists in eliciting laughs and lightening moods during oppressive times; he observes the pagan fertility rituals, his curiosity putting him in a dangerous and precarious position; he is intrigued by the oblivious contentment of the holy fool who enters his cathedral when he is unable to make progress, and unwilling to depict the terrors of hell he had been commisioned to paint; he is fascinated by the bold but insecure Boriska, who falsely swears that his father had told him the secret to bell casting.

It is not an easy film to watch - Criterion has put together the nearly 3 and a half hour original cut, and Tarkovsky takes his time telling the story. I know the first time I saw this, in an arthouse theater, I was overwhelmed and exhausted, and couldn't think of much else for a few days. I just saw it again and had some of the same feelings. Still, the invention with which the camera movements are developed and scenes are depicted makes for an exciting experience for lovers of inventive cinema. It's gorgeously filmed, and the restoration looks good, though not perfect. There remain some artifacts in this copy of wear and tear in the original print materials, and it is not as sharp as I remember the picture to have been when I saw a 35mm print projection more than a decade ago. It looks pretty good on my television, but the imperfections show up when I project it through a very good Barco screen projector. As other reviewers have noted, the widescreen is achieved through letterboxing, which means that even on a widescreen television you're going to get some seriously hefty black bars. This is a film that deserves a re-release on Criterion, and I know I'll be first in line to pick up a new copy if and when they release it with higher standards.

"Magnificent film, but get the Artificial Eye version."

Written By: Mr. H. C. Orr

Straight up, "Andrei Rublev" is possibly my favourite film, the reason why I got turned onto cinema when I was 15 (some 14 years ago!). So the three stars are for the product rather than the film, which would get 5/5 every time from me. Secondly, I love Criterion DVDs: as a matter of fact, I received "Breathless"/"Bout De Souffle" today and I'm mightily impressed with the film transfer, packaging and extras that set has.
Much is made of the fact that this is the "uncut" version of the film. This may be so, but the twenty minutes that this version has over the Russian Cinema Council version (availaible on Artificial Eye in the U.K.) are generally not new scenes: rather they are extra shots that have been cut from the RUSCICO/AE release. For instance, when Kirill storms out of the monastery after the apparent snub by Theophanes, he beats a stray dog that chases him. In the AE release, the yelping of the dog is the only indication that he kills the animal; in the Criterion version, there is a shot of the dog writhing on the ground. This is not to indicate my distate for animal cruelty, but just that these shots don't in my opinion really add any profundidty to the film. Another example would be the jester's bare, er, posterior with a smiley face daubed on during the hut scene near the beginning, which the AE release omits: it's just bits and bobs spread throughout the film, not extra whole scenes, that's all.
This would be fine if the one-disc transfer was up the standard of the AE release (which splits the film between two discs, 99 and 86 minutes). It isn't. Perhaps it's because we are so used to good transfers onto DVD owadays, where even the no-frill Second Run and Eclipse relaeses are of a very high standard, that this release from 1998 seems sub-standard. The key is that the bit-rate is very low. I don't like the nerdy appraisal of a DVD by exact measurements of bit-rates, but it's clear that when the camera moves (for instance in the hut with the jester) the transfer isn't up to snuff. The rather washed-out look to the fantastic black and white photgraphy and the over-sized black bars further exaccerbate the irritation. Sure, ramping down 100Hz settings, black adjust, etc., the film is just about watchable, but the enormous black bars seem to be hiding the fact that this isn't a great transfer.

Great film, but get the Artificial Eye release. There are far, far better more recent Criterion discs to get before you think about getting this.

"Interesting Masterpiece"

Written By: Alberto M. Barral

This movie is difficult on the viewer because it's not so much about telling a story as about painting an era and presenting a human struggle that is largely an interior experience.
The story is the life of Russia's greatest icon painter, Andrei Rublev, about whom not much is known, so Tarkovsky has freedom to re-create him to suit his purpose. His only well documented work is the Holy Trinity now at the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow, and is considered Russia's best icon painting, which I saw while I was there as well as his attributed works in the Cathedral of the Annunciation, they all have a unique beauty and spirituality that is superior to the works of other icons of that time. Rubiev was eventually cannonized by the Russian Orthodox church and is revered as a saint by the faithful.
More than a movie, it is a series of pictures and landscapes that portray Medieval Russia, it's beauty and its brutality are well represented.
The movie conveys the mystical atmosphere of that time, when faith was much more important than knowledge. The timing of the film makes it seem extremely long because the director is focusing on the beauty of the forest, a field of flowers or the details on a bough while the dialog does not necessarily help to clarify much. We do get a sense though that Rubliev, like all great artistic geniuses was a complex personality. The actor that plays him has a great ability to express nuances through his hand movements, the posture and even furtive glances. In many ways I feel the movie would have been even more successful as a silent work, and oddly enough, Rubliev takes a vow of silence and remains without speaking for a large portion of the film.
The long closeups of the faces are like icon paintings, and I must say that the actors chosen look like the exact replica of the figures I have seen painted on icons. More than watching a movie, Rubliev is an experience in meditation and/or prayer. It requires a different patience than what's needed for a regular slow movie, because it is trying to use the visual images to create allegories, and because the length of the scenes or detailed closeups have a powerful impact in memory. One of the magical aspects of the movie is that the experience of remembering it is much more pleasurable than actually seeing it.

"TARKOVSKY"

Written By: J. Ferguson

Tarkovsky's films are usually beautifull from a cinematic perspective. His visual perspectives range from mundane to magnificent. But his films all end up being sermons, which ruins the overall effect for me.

"Gorgeous"

Written By: Barry Gallegos

Incredible BW cinematography. Absolutely stunning imagery. If you are film afficianado, get this, watch it, absord it.